This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Levelledout (talk | contribs) at 01:52, 31 March 2015 (→Final warning). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 01:52, 31 March 2015 by Levelledout (talk | contribs) (→Final warning)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
| Archives | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Electronic cigarette
Hello Levelledout. I see that you've just made a revert at the Electronic cigarette article. Rather than reverting wholesale, please discuss changes on the talk page, otherwise it could result in a block. I'm sure that you've read it already, but if not, then please familiarise yourself with the edit-warring policy. Thank you. — Mr. Stradivarius 02:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- Hello User:Mr. Stradivarius. Whilst I didn't consider it edit-warring I do accept that it was not completely necessary to perform a wholesale revert. Is there any chance that you could look into the fact that a particular user managed to get the full page protection lifted, then almost immediately made 17 edits in two hours including a 9k edit? It seems very difficult to actually work together to achieve consensus when this is happening.Levelledout (talk) 03:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- Hello again User:Mr. Stradivarius, would you mind giving me a bit more feedback on this issue please? I know it's been a few days since you sent the original message but I'm wondering whether you are asking me not to revert whole/multiple edits at once just on e-cigarette articles or something else? Does this restriction apply to me or all editors? I ask because as I hope you understand I don't want to get blocked. Also, I wonder if you would mind pointing out to me which policy or guideline I was in violation of in order to receive the above warning? If I am perfectly honest, in spite of what I originally said, I did consider the edit necessary as I felt that the user in question was attempting to force through large-scale changes without consensus almost immediately after that user single-handedly managed to have full-page protection removed. I have read through the edit-warring policy and am at a loss to how that particular revert could have been considered edit-warring. There was no back-and-forth reverts, the process was simply 10k of changes from user > I reverted. It was also, to my recollection, the first time I have ever reverted multiple edits at once, therefore not something that I do routinely.Levelledout (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
- My previous message wasn't an official restriction, but rather a warning, and I was only warning you about the Electronic cigarette article. The article isn't under any special sanctions, but as it is obviously controversial I'll be enforcing the edit-warring policy strictly there. (In particular, note that even if you don't break the three-revert rule it can still count as edit warring and still result in a block.) And yes, it was the edit-warring policy I was referring to. To be clear, one edit by itself usually doesn't constitute edit-warring; rather, I wanted to warn you about the policy before the situation got out of hand. Hope this clears things up. Best — Mr. Stradivarius 00:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
- OK yes understood, thank you for the information.Levelledout (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
- My previous message wasn't an official restriction, but rather a warning, and I was only warning you about the Electronic cigarette article. The article isn't under any special sanctions, but as it is obviously controversial I'll be enforcing the edit-warring policy strictly there. (In particular, note that even if you don't break the three-revert rule it can still count as edit warring and still result in a block.) And yes, it was the edit-warring policy I was referring to. To be clear, one edit by itself usually doesn't constitute edit-warring; rather, I wanted to warn you about the policy before the situation got out of hand. Hope this clears things up. Best — Mr. Stradivarius 00:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
- Hello again User:Mr. Stradivarius, would you mind giving me a bit more feedback on this issue please? I know it's been a few days since you sent the original message but I'm wondering whether you are asking me not to revert whole/multiple edits at once just on e-cigarette articles or something else? Does this restriction apply to me or all editors? I ask because as I hope you understand I don't want to get blocked. Also, I wonder if you would mind pointing out to me which policy or guideline I was in violation of in order to receive the above warning? If I am perfectly honest, in spite of what I originally said, I did consider the edit necessary as I felt that the user in question was attempting to force through large-scale changes without consensus almost immediately after that user single-handedly managed to have full-page protection removed. I have read through the edit-warring policy and am at a loss to how that particular revert could have been considered edit-warring. There was no back-and-forth reverts, the process was simply 10k of changes from user > I reverted. It was also, to my recollection, the first time I have ever reverted multiple edits at once, therefore not something that I do routinely.Levelledout (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Final warning
Another revert like this one will get you blocked. I've already warned you above, so you really have no excuse this time. Discuss it at the talk page, don't revert. — Mr. Stradivarius 01:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- Hello again User:Mr. Stradivarius, there is/was obviously still some misunderstanding about this. I thought that what you meant last time was that one edit was not generally considered edit-warring and that the warning was for informational purposes to stop it descending into an edit-war. But OK I get what you are saying. I see that you have also warned QG and in my opinion his revert did constitute edit-warring since it was reverting a revert. It may be worth also noting that the recent edits to the article appear to be in direct violation of advice recently given by an admin stating "Once unprotected, please ensure that you've achieved consensus for any changes you make to the page given how controversial it's been."