| Revision as of 00:49, 6 August 2009 editKww (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers82,486 edits →Did you understand what 1RR meant when you agreed to it?← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:55, 6 August 2009 edit undoPokerdance (talk | contribs)2,545 edits →Did you understand what 1RR meant when you agreed to it?Next edit → | ||
| Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
| ::#Both edits completely undid the preceding edit. It doesn't matter whether you hit the rollback button, the undo button, or manually edited the "S" to and "s". That's two reverts. If I were you, I would undo that second revert before Toddst1 notices it. | ::#Both edits completely undid the preceding edit. It doesn't matter whether you hit the rollback button, the undo button, or manually edited the "S" to and "s". That's two reverts. If I were you, I would undo that second revert before Toddst1 notices it. | ||
| ::#I have a watchlist of over 6000 articles. I monitor most edits to those articles. Your edits do get more careful attention than most, and will for the next 12 months, until your editing restriction is over.—](]) 00:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC) | ::#I have a watchlist of over 6000 articles. I monitor most edits to those articles. Your edits do get more careful attention than most, and will for the next 12 months, until your editing restriction is over.—](]) 00:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ::::That is not an assumption of ] at all. But regardless, treating me like a vandal isn't going to put me in any of a better mood with you, and I would really advise you quit. If you continue to stalk my edits, I will keep your previous revision as evidence that you are assuming bad faith with edits that are - in most cases - really not harming the encyclopedia. I believe that ''you'' can get in trouble for being so uncivil. <font face="Trebuchet MS, Century Gothic, Verdana">]</font> <sup>]</sup>/<small>]</small> 00:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:55, 6 August 2009
| This is Pokerdance's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
| Archives: 1 |
 | If you leave me a message, I will respond here and will let you know on your talk page using the {{Talkback}} template. |
Pokerdance's Archives
August 2009 - Edit War Reply
Excuse me i apologise if this sounds round, but i think you need to look at what an edit war is. a WP:edit war is defined as two users who are constantly reverting each others edits. On the Exposed (Kristinia DeBarge album) page i have NOT engaged in an edit war because reverting incorrect edits by another user (yes there were 4 that i was aware of) does not constitute an edit war. if the IP user had reverted them back then yes you would be correct in giving me a warning. Frankly i feel insulted by you leaving me such messages on my discussion page and i dont think it is fair seen that it gives the impression that i am unware of wikipedia rules, that i cannot edit properly and that my editing behaviour is near unacceptable. I would request in the future that you check yourself that you fully understand editing protocol before making such claims. i feel that your motive for doing so my not have been WP:good faith but more to do with the fact that we clashed previously on this article regarding an issue with the way singles are listed in the infobox. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC))
- I know fully well what an edit war is, I have been involved in many, please do not try to educate me. Making four revisions in 24 hours or less is a violation of the WP:3RR, and while there are some exceptions to the rule, being right is not one of them. I know this firsthand, as I was recently blocked for the same mistake you are currently making. I'm not trying to be uncivil or assume bad faith, and I'm not holding any grudges. I just want to warn you about your breach of policy, before you wind up getting a block like I did the other day. POKERdance /contribs 00:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- once again without meaning to be rude i also have been involved in edit wars and know what constitutes to one. please don't try to educate me either because ironically i've been editing much longer than yourself and have learnt the rules through discussion with adminstrators and other experienced users. there are exceptions to the rules, i believed that the IP edits effected the quality of the article hence i reverted them. in heinsight i could have just restored the article to a previous version which is what i will do in the future. if it is any consolation it is almost admirable that you want to warn others about the dangers of edit warring. but i would have appreciated it if you had left me a more subtle warning first because in most cases edit warring involved actions (reverts) from both users. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC))
- I'm not trying to educate you on what an edit war is, you seemed to demonstrate knowledge in your previous comment. I'm just trying to explain to you that being right can still get you blocked if you violate the three-revert rule. Restoring to an old version is nearly identical to reverting in many situations, and was one of the strikes held against myself when I was blocked for violation of the rule. And I would have left a more gentle warning so as to not appear as demonstrating bad faith, but 3RR warnings are single-level templates.
- Please do not wave around your seniority as an excuse to talk to users in a demeaning tone. It's not only quite disrespectful, but it could be seen as a demonstration of bad faith. POKERdance /contribs 00:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- of course i didnt mean it like that but what i meant to say was that i have been editing now for a long time i have had past experience with edit wars and so i was quite familiar with the consequences of such and also what constitutes to one. i am sorry if my words offended. i might be a little blunt sometiems but i never do things in bad faith. I really should stop editing at night lol the tiredness makes me lose my sharpness. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC))
Did you understand what 1RR meant when you agreed to it?
This and this together is already a violation of your 1RR restriction.—Kww(talk) 00:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- The first wasn't a revert. And I would really appreciate it if you stop checking in on every edit I make. It's unfair to monitor me like I'm a vandal or something. POKERdance /contribs 00:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- Both edits completely undid the preceding edit. It doesn't matter whether you hit the rollback button, the undo button, or manually edited the "S" to and "s". That's two reverts. If I were you, I would undo that second revert before Toddst1 notices it.
- I have a watchlist of over 6000 articles. I monitor most edits to those articles. Your edits do get more careful attention than most, and will for the next 12 months, until your editing restriction is over.—Kww(talk) 00:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- That is not an assumption of good faith at all. But regardless, treating me like a vandal isn't going to put me in any of a better mood with you, and I would really advise you quit. If you continue to stalk my edits, I will keep your previous revision as evidence that you are assuming bad faith with edits that are - in most cases - really not harming the encyclopedia. I believe that you can get in trouble for being so uncivil. POKERdance /contribs 00:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)