Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Elonka (talk | contribs) at 19:28, 15 July 2008 (→What is a revert?: - Definitions aside, what about the article?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome

Greetings...

Hello, QuackGuru, and welcome to Misplaced Pages!

To get started, click on the green welcome.

I hope you like it here and decide to stay!

Xp54321

Happy editing! Xp54321 (talk) 21:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Quackwatch

QuackGuru, enough, you are now arguing with two different administrators about the definition of "revert". I recommend that you take a break, and avoid posting at Talk:Quackwatch for a day. If you disagree, I can upgrade this to a formal ban, but I'm hoping that simply asking you to take a break will suffice. Please go work on something else for awhile? --Elonka 19:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I think there was a misunderstanding. The text is sourced.

I was in the middle of writing this comment. Can I finish posting this comment.

This information was deleted. but criticizes its rhetorical style as "perhaps not the best way to win an argument, especially with serious-minded people."

Ludwigs2 restored the deleted information.

This was a revert by Ludwigs2. QuackGuru 19:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I would rather that you didn't, because you are again mis-defining the term "revert". I am keeping close tabs on Ludwigs2's edits, and have been engaging him in discussion at his talkpage. If he makes a real revert, I assure you I'll be dealing with him very rapidly. --Elonka 19:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 restored the identical part of the sentence that was previously deleted. It was a real revert. QuackGuru 19:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Still not a revert, because he substantially changed the paragraph. Yes the wording in that specific quote is the same, but it's a quote, so of course it is going to be the same. To call it a "revert", I'd want to see something that was more specific, where the edit obviously removed or re-added just the text in a previous edit, without changing anything else towards trying to find a compromise. --Elonka 19:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It was still a revert based on what is a revert. QuackGuru 20:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

What is a revert?

A revert, in this context, means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors. This can include undoing edits to a page, deleting content or restoring deleted content, undoing page moves (sometimes called "move warring"), undoing administrative actions (sometimes called "wheel warring"), or recreating a page.

An editor does not have to perform the same revert on a page more than three times to breach this rule; all reverts made by an editor on a particular page within a 24 hour period are counted.

Please read WP:3RR. Ludwigs2 edit was a revert because Ludwigs2 restored deleted content. QuackGuru 20:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I am very familiar with 3RR. The definition of "restoring deleted content", would more apply to something like what Jossi did, which was just copy/pasting information in from a previous version of the article, but without making any attempt to change the text. Let me try and explain it another way: The goal of the editing conditions, is to help the editors on the page try to find a compromise wording. This will probably involve having some text by some editors, and some text by others. That's okay, and that's not a revert. Or to put it another way: If one editor adds "ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ" to the article, and another editor deletes half, leaving "ABCDEFGHIJKLM", and then the first editor changes it to "ABCDEFGHIKJKLMSTUVXY", and then the other editor changes it to ABCDEFGHIJKLMNSUV", and the other editor says, "Okay, I can live with that." Neither one of them is reverting. They are both changing the text, in a back and forth method, trying to find a compromise. Does that make more sense? --Elonka 20:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

There was no change to the specific text and that's a real revert.

Elonka wrote in part: Yes the wording in that specific quote is the same, but it's a quote, so of course it is going to be the same.

Based on what is a revert Ludwigs2 made a real revert. Is that clear enough for you? QuackGuru 20:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

To prove it was a revert, I would like to see a diff that shows an exact one-to-one correspondence between an original edit, and a new edit. If the wording is changed, or new sources are added, it is not a revert. It is clear that you are not understanding the definition of revert, in the context of the editing conditions. But that's why we have uninvolved administrators here. In the future, when you see something that you think is a revert, you can bring it up, but if an uninvolved admin says, "No, that's not a revert," then you should accept that and move on. Continuing to bring up the same thing over and over, is not helpful. Also, in terms of Ludwigs2's edits, he is obviously embarked on a major series of changes to the article. Rather than scrutinizing every edit, better would be to wait a few hours, until he's done, and then look at the entire set of changes. If he's just bit by bit reverting to an earlier version (which I don't think he is), it'll show up when he's done. There's no need to critique each small change. Please, try working on something else for awhile? There are many other areas of Misplaced Pages which could benefit from your attention. Check something at WP:CLEANUP, or add a stub to fill in a redlink, such as at Misplaced Pages:Missing journal articles. Or, just click on Special:Random a few times. I usually find that within a dozen clicks, I have either found something that I want to fix, or at least tag as needing cleanup.  :) --Elonka 21:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Elonka wrote in part: Yes the wording in that specific quote is the same, but it's a quote, so of course it is going to be the same.

Elonka acknowledged the text is the same. Readding the same text is clearly a revert per WP:3RR.

but criticizes its rhetorical style as "perhaps not the best way to win an argument, especially with serious-minded people."

but criticizes its rhetorical style as "perhaps not the best way to win an argument, especially with serious-minded people."

Ludwigs2 restored deleted content.QuackGuru 21:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the wording of that specific phrase is identical to a previous version of the article. If that was the only thing that he was restoring, then it would be a revert. But it's not the only thing he's restoring. He also is making many other changes, which seem to be a good faith effort to be sensitive to previous concerns, in an attempt to try and find a compromise version. That's not a revert, that's more of a "negotiative edit". Now please, stop calling it a revert, otherwise you may run afoul of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I recommend waiting a day, letting Ludwigs2 finish with his edits, and then you (or anyone else) can go in and continue to edit the article, in an attempt to change wording to something that you like better. Then Ludwigs2 (or anyone) can make their own edits, and back and forth. If certain phrases get restored and deleted in this back and forth process, that's okay, as it's part of consensus-building, as long as each side makes a good faith effort to try and find a compromise from previous versions. --Elonka 21:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Elonka acknowledged: Yes, the wording of that specific phrase is identical to a previous version of the article.

Restoring deleted content is the definition of a revert. That's a revert, and not a "negotiative edit".

Making other changes does not change the fact that it was revert. The same text was restored which counts as a revert according to WP:3RR.

It is a revert (readding the same exact text) based on what is a revert per WP:3RR. QuackGuru 21:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

LOL, Elonka, I think you just gave the Wikilawyers an "out". Be prepared for lots of "reverts + other edits". I did warn you that you had to come down heavy on your side of the fence rather than just SA + Ronz. Shot info (talk) 23:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The edit clearly was a revert and Elonka should stop claiming it was not a revert. QuackGuru 17:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Quackguru, obviously you disagree with several of the uninvolved admins over this particular edit and that's fine. However, continuing to insist that you are right and everyone else is wrong isn't going to change our opinions or get the other editor in trouble. Starting to make attacks, like accusing Elonka of lying, really isn't going to help your situation any and may end up with you being sanctioned. So please, lets just drop the concern over this one edit and get back to working on articles, ok? Shell 18:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  • QuackGuru, aside from debating about what is or isn't a revert, I would ask this: Do you like the Quackwatch article now? Personally, I have been pleased with how the article seems much more stable now, within just a few days. There is no longer any edit-warring, and the article has not needed to be re-protected. So, do you like it? Or is there anything that you think should be changed? If so, you are welcome to edit the article to make modifications. --Elonka 19:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)