Wikipedia talk:Edit warring/Archives/2013/January
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Edit warring. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
3 Reverts Warning- Theresa Spence Article
I disagree with the 3 Reverts Warning given to me by Dougweller. I have discussed this on Dougwellers talk page to no avail. A copy of our discussion is posted below.--Syncmaster941bw (talk) 22:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Dougweller I fail to see how you draw the conclusion that I am involved in an edit war on the Theresa Spence page, when I have performed only one revert on that page, hardly a war!. Please explain how one revert is classed as an edit war? You have also chosen to deleate my reverted text without providing a reason other than the "edit war" excuse,please explain why you deleated the reverted text?--Syncmaster941bw (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- Three reverts the way we count them: 02:13, 6 January 2013 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theresa_Spence&oldid=531549924 03:50, 6 January 2013 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theresa_Spence&oldid=531562172 04:05, 6 January 2013http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theresa_Spence&oldid=531563932 My edit summary didn't say anything about an edit war, it said "why do we care about the finances of her husband? looks like a BLP violation to me, a possible attempt to tar Spence".Dougweller (talk) 14:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- The first two instances were not reverts, they were failure to provide reliable sources, there was no undoing/reverting. New text was entered and a reliable source was added after the second failure to provide a reliable source. So only one revert so far. I did not get any notification, on my email or my talk page, that you had edited the Theresa Spence text even though it is on my watchlist. I dont know if that is an error on Wikipedia's part or an error on your part. I will address your edit later, once you agree that I have only made one revert to the Theresa Spence page--Syncmaster941bw (talk) 16:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- Someone reverts you, you replace the material slightly reworded or in a different place, someone reverts that and you do the same thing -- 3 reverts or edit-warring, take your pick. I wouldn't take the chance of being blocked if I were you. I can't control your watchlist, and if you want to discuss my edit then I suggest you use the article talk page so others can't see it. Dougweller (talk) 16:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- Disagree. In my case my first two edits were reverted due to technical errors e.g. lack of reliable sources, not because the other editor objected to the content of my edits. In my particular case I disagree in your interpratation of reverts/s--Syncmaster941bw (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- In other words, you are claiming an exemption. That won't fly, see WP:NOT3RR. And not that it matters, but the 2nd revert was because they objected to the content, calling it coatracking. As I said, that doesn't matter, the 3RR warning was correct - none of the exemptions listed apply. Please also note that now that you've been warned once, any breach of 3RR in the future can result in a block without warning. Some editors assume that they would need another warning and I wouldn't want you to get blocked because you thought that to be the case. Dougweller (talk) 20:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- No problem, please advise me as to how I may appeal your decision.--Syncmaster941bw (talk) 21:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- It's not exactly a decision, it's a warning. You can ask why I am counting 3 reverts at Wikipedia talk:Edit warring and I give you permission to copy any of my post there. Dougweller (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- No problem, please advise me as to how I may appeal your decision.--Syncmaster941bw (talk) 21:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- In other words, you are claiming an exemption. That won't fly, see WP:NOT3RR. And not that it matters, but the 2nd revert was because they objected to the content, calling it coatracking. As I said, that doesn't matter, the 3RR warning was correct - none of the exemptions listed apply. Please also note that now that you've been warned once, any breach of 3RR in the future can result in a block without warning. Some editors assume that they would need another warning and I wouldn't want you to get blocked because you thought that to be the case. Dougweller (talk) 20:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- Disagree. In my case my first two edits were reverted due to technical errors e.g. lack of reliable sources, not because the other editor objected to the content of my edits. In my particular case I disagree in your interpratation of reverts/s--Syncmaster941bw (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- Someone reverts you, you replace the material slightly reworded or in a different place, someone reverts that and you do the same thing -- 3 reverts or edit-warring, take your pick. I wouldn't take the chance of being blocked if I were you. I can't control your watchlist, and if you want to discuss my edit then I suggest you use the article talk page so others can't see it. Dougweller (talk) 16:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- The first two instances were not reverts, they were failure to provide reliable sources, there was no undoing/reverting. New text was entered and a reliable source was added after the second failure to provide a reliable source. So only one revert so far. I did not get any notification, on my email or my talk page, that you had edited the Theresa Spence text even though it is on my watchlist. I dont know if that is an error on Wikipedia's part or an error on your part. I will address your edit later, once you agree that I have only made one revert to the Theresa Spence page--Syncmaster941bw (talk) 16:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Please check article for Theresa Spence
There seems to be a whole lot of POV pushing going on, and facts being constantly removed from the page by a small cadre of biased 'editors'. Not really doing wikipedia any favours as it is pretty disreputable. Please have some previously unengaged editors review my claim, thanks. 24.224.214.165 (talk) 17:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)