Misplaced Pages:Revert only when necessary: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 17:09, 3 January 2012 editSebastianHelm (talk \| contribs)Administrators21,372 edits rm one last time per talk← Previous edit		Revision as of 19:42, 24 February 2012 edit undoRjclaudio (talk \| contribs)227 edits pt:Wikipédia:Reverta apenas quando necessário Next edit →
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{essay\|WP:ROWN}}		{{essay\|WP:ROWN}}
			Uma '''{{WP\|reversão}}''' é uma edição que desfaz uma determinação alteração feita por um ou mais editores no passado. Há várias táticas usadas por alguns editores nas suas tentativas de facilitar um melhor uso da {{WP\|página de discussão}} e evitar {{WP\|guerras de edição}}.
	A '''revert''' is to undo a certain change made by one or more editors in the past. There are several tactics used by some editors in their attempts to facilitate better talk page discussion and to avoid ].

			== Guerras de edição são consideradas danosas ==
	==Revert wars are ] (the Three-Revert Rule)==
			As {{WP\|política}}s da Wikipédia afirmam que você não deve reverter um artigo mais que três vezes em um mesmo dia. Esse é um limite máximo, não um direito dado; você não deve reverter um artigo mais que três vezes diariamente. Ver ''']''' para mais detalhes sobre isso.
	] states that you may not revert any article more than three times in the same day. This is a strict limit, not a given right; you should not revert any one article more than three times daily. See ''']''' for details on this.

			Uma alta frequência de {{WP\|guerra de edição}} deixam o {{WP\|histórico}} da página menos útil, desperdiça espaço do servidor, dificulta que outras pessoas possam contribuir, e imunda as {{WP\|mudanças recentes}} e as {{WP\|páginas vigiadas}}. Faça um ] ao invés de reverter. A violação dessa regra pode levar a proteção da página na versão preferida pela parte que não violou a política, ou bloqueio do usuário.
	High-frequency ] make the ] less useful, waste space in the database, make it hard for other people to contribute, and flood recent changes and watchlists. ]s must not be used to violate this rule. Please ] rather than reverting. Violation of this rule may lead to protection of the page on the version preferred by the non-violating party; blocking; or investigation by the ].

			== Reversão afasta editores ==
	==Reverting drives away editors==
			A reversão tende a ser hostil, fazendo a edição na Wikipédia ser algo pouco prazerosa. Algumas vezes isso provoca uma hostilidade recíproca de re-reversão. As vezes isso também leva os editores a abandonarem a Wikipédia, temporariamente ou não, especialmente os mais calmos. Esse resultado é claramente prejudicial ao desenvolvimento da Wikipédia, e portanto considerações ponderadas e justas devem ser aplicadas a todas as reversões.
	Reverting tends to be hostile, making editing Misplaced Pages unpleasant. Sometimes this provokes a reciprocal hostility of re-reversion. Sometimes it also leads to editors departing Misplaced Pages, temporarily or otherwise, especially the less bellicose. This outcome is clearly detrimental to the development of Misplaced Pages, thus fair and considered thought should be applied to all reversions given all the above.

			== Explique as reversões ==
	==Explain reverts==

	{{also\|WP:REVEXP}}

	Being reverted can feel a bit like a slap in the face—"I worked hard on those edits, and someone just rolled it all back". However, sometimes a revert is the best response to a bad edit, so we can't just stop reverting. What's important is to let people know ''why'' you reverted. This helps the reverted person because they can remake their edit while fixing whatever problem it is that you've identified. Obviously it is best to fix the problem and not revert at all.		Being reverted can feel a bit like a slap in the face—"I worked hard on those edits, and someone just rolled it all back". However, sometimes a revert is the best response to a bad edit, so we can't just stop reverting. What's important is to let people know ''why'' you reverted. This helps the reverted person because they can remake their edit while fixing whatever problem it is that you've identified. Obviously it is best to fix the problem and not revert at all.
Line 47:		Line 46:
	]		]
	]		]

			]

Revision as of 19:42, 24 February 2012

Essay on editing Misplaced Pages

This is an essay.
It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Misplaced Pages contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Misplaced Pages's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

Shortcut

WP:ROWN

Uma shortcut: page does not exist: WP:reversão (help) é uma edição que desfaz uma determinação alteração feita por um ou mais editores no passado. Há várias táticas usadas por alguns editores nas suas tentativas de facilitar um melhor uso da shortcut: page does not exist: WP:página de discussão (help) e evitar shortcut: page does not exist: WP:guerras de edição (help).

Guerras de edição são consideradas danosas

As shortcut: page does not exist: WP:política (help)s da Wikipédia afirmam que você não deve reverter um artigo mais que três vezes em um mesmo dia. Esse é um limite máximo, não um direito dado; você não deve reverter um artigo mais que três vezes diariamente. Ver Wikipédia:Guerra de edições para mais detalhes sobre isso.

Uma alta frequência de shortcut: page does not exist: WP:guerra de edição (help) deixam o shortcut: page does not exist: WP:histórico (help) da página menos útil, desperdiça espaço do servidor, dificulta que outras pessoas possam contribuir, e imunda as shortcut: page does not exist: WP:mudanças recentes (help) e as shortcut: page does not exist: WP:páginas vigiadas (help). Faça um pedido de proteção ao invés de reverter. A violação dessa regra pode levar a proteção da página na versão preferida pela parte que não violou a política, ou bloqueio do usuário.

Reversão afasta editores

A reversão tende a ser hostil, fazendo a edição na Wikipédia ser algo pouco prazerosa. Algumas vezes isso provoca uma hostilidade recíproca de re-reversão. As vezes isso também leva os editores a abandonarem a Wikipédia, temporariamente ou não, especialmente os mais calmos. Esse resultado é claramente prejudicial ao desenvolvimento da Wikipédia, e portanto considerações ponderadas e justas devem ser aplicadas a todas as reversões.

Explique as reversões

Being reverted can feel a bit like a slap in the face—"I worked hard on those edits, and someone just rolled it all back". However, sometimes a revert is the best response to a bad edit, so we can't just stop reverting. What's important is to let people know why you reverted. This helps the reverted person because they can remake their edit while fixing whatever problem it is that you've identified. Obviously it is best to fix the problem and not revert at all.

Explaining reverts also helps other people. For example, it lets people know whether they need to even view the reverted version (in the case of, e.g., "rv page blanking"). Because of the lack of paralanguage online, if you don't explain things clearly people will probably assume all kinds of nasty things, and that's how edit wars get started.

If your reasons for reverting are too complex to explain in the edit summary, drop a note on the Talk page. A nice thing to do is to drop the note on the Talk page first, and then revert (referencing the talk page in your edit summary), rather than the other way round. Sometimes the other person will agree with you and revert for you before you have a chance. Conversely, if someone reverts your change without apparent explanation, you may wish to wait a few minutes to see if they explain their actions on the article's talk page or your user talk page, or contact the editor and ask for the reason for their revert. Do not engage in discussions in edit summaries. Doing so is a hallmark of edit warring, instead, stop editing and use the talk page.

Avoiding or limiting your reverts

Having realized that article development has ground to a halt because of incessant reversions, two or more people agree to give higher-than-usual respect to each other's edits. Unlike the three-revert rule, these rules are usually voluntary and self-enforced. For cases where they are imposed as restrictions, see Other revert rules in the edit warring policy.

One-revert rule

Some editors may choose to voluntarily follow a one-revert rule: If you revert a change and someone re-reverts it, discuss it with the re-reverter rather than reverting it a second time.

Sometimes, users may be limited to one revert by the Arbitration Committee or by the community per the editing restrictions guidance. In other cases, articles or entire topics may be placed under a standing 1RR restriction.

Zero-revert rule

Editors may also choose to adhere to a zero-revert rule, for example:

"Only revert obvious vandalism. Instead of removing or reverting changes or additions you may not like, add to and enhance them while following the principle of preserving information and viewpoints. If you can't figure out how any part of an edit benefits an article ask for clarification on the article's or the editor's discussion page."

Using a zero-revert rule gives fellow editors the benefit of the doubt in all cases. Even in instances where you know the other editor's viewpoint is dead wrong, the fact that some people have this viewpoint can be relevant in itself, and their contributions might be expandable into a useful addition to the article. This rule can be very difficult for some to follow in practice and may sometimes require some creative editing.

Philosophy	Article content Articles must be written All Five Pillars are equally important Avoid vague introductions Be a reliable source Civil POV pushing Cohesion Competence is required Concede lost arguments Dissent is not disloyalty Don't lie Don't search for objections Editing Misplaced Pages is like visiting a foreign country Editors will sometimes be wrong Eight simple rules for editing our encyclopedia Explanationism External criticism of Misplaced Pages Here to build an encyclopedia Leave it to the experienced Levels of competence Levels of consensus Most ideas are bad Need Neutrality of sources Not broken is ugly Not editing because of Misplaced Pages restriction The one question Oversimplification Paradoxes Paraphrasing POV and OR from editors, sources, and fields Process is important Product, process, policy Purpose Reasonability rule Systemic bias There is no seniority Ten Simple Rules for Editing Misplaced Pages Tendentious editing The role of policies in collaborative anarchy The rules are principles Trifecta We are absolutely here to right great wrongs Misplaced Pages in brief Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia Misplaced Pages is a community Misplaced Pages is not RationalWiki
Article construction	100K featured articles Abandoned stubs Acronym overkill Adding images improves the encyclopedia Advanced article editing Advanced text formatting Akin's Laws of Article Writing Alternatives to the "Expand" template Amnesia test A navbox on every page An unfinished house is a real problem Articles have a half-life Autosizing images Avoid mission statements Be neutral in form Beef up that first revision Blind men and an elephant BOLD, revert, discuss cycle Build content to endure Cherrypicking Chesterton's fence Children's lit, adult new readers, & large-print books Citation overkill Citation underkill Common-style fallacy Concept cloud Creating controversial content Criticisms of society may be consistent with NPOV and reliability Deprecated sources Dictionaries as sources Don't demolish the house while it's still being built Don't get hung up on minor details Don't hope the house will build itself Don't panic Don't "teach the controversy" Editing on mobile devices Editors are not mindreaders Encourage the newcomers Endorsements (commercial) Featured articles may have problems Formatting bilateral relations articles Formatting bilateral relations templates Fruit of the poisonous tree Give an article a chance How to write a featured article Identifying and using independent sources History sources Law sources Primary sources Science sources Style guides Tertiary sources Ignore STRONGNAT for date formats Inaccuracy Introduction to structurism Mine a source Merge Test Minors and persons judged incompetent "Murder of" articles Not every story/event/disaster needs a biography Not everything needs a navbox Not everything needs a template Nothing is in stone Obtain peer review comments Organizing disambiguation pages by subject area Permastub Potential, not just current state Presentism Principle of Some Astonishment The problem with elegant variation Pro and con lists Printability Pruning article revisions Publicists Put a little effort into it Restoring part of a reverted edit Robotic editing Sham consensus Source your plot summaries Specialized-style fallacy Stub Makers Run an edit-a-thon Temporary versions of articles Tertiary-source fallacy There are no shortcuts to neutrality There is no deadline There is a deadline The deadline is now Try not to leave it a stub What is a reliable source Understanding Misplaced Pages's content standards Walled garden What an article should not include Misplaced Pages is a work in progress Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source Misplaced Pages is not being written in an organized fashion The world will not end tomorrow Write the article first Writing better articles
Writing article content	Avoid thread mode Copyediting reception sections Coup Don't throw more litter onto the pile Gender-neutral language Myth vs fiction Proseline Use our own words We shouldn't be able to figure out your opinions Write the article first Writing about women Writing better articles
Removing or deleting content	Adjectives in your recommendations AfD is not a war zone Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions Arguments to avoid in deletion reviews Arguments to avoid in image deletion discussions Arguments to make in deletion discussions Avoid repeated arguments Before commenting in a deletion discussion But there must be sources! Confusing arguments mean nothing Content removal Counting and sorting are not original research Delete or merge Delete the junk Deletion is not cleanup Does deletion help? Don't attack the nominator Don't confuse stub status with non-notability Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument Emptying categories out of proccess Follow the leader How the presumption of notability works How to save an article proposed for deletion I just don't like it Identifying blatant advertising Identifying test edits Immunity Keep it concise Liar liar pants on fire Nothing Nothing is clear Overzealous deletion Relisting can be abusive Relist bias The Heymann Standard Unopposed AFD discussion Misplaced Pages is not Whack-A-Mole Why was the page I created deleted? What to do if your article gets tagged for speedy deletion When in doubt, hide it in the woodwork No Encyclopedic Use

Essays on civility

The basics	Accepting other users Apology Contributing to complicated discussions Divisiveness Don't retaliate Editors' pronouns Edit at your own pace Encouraging the newcomers Enjoy yourself Expect no thanks High-functioning autism and Asperger's editors How to be civil Maintaining a friendly space Negotiation Obsessive–compulsive disorder editors Please say please Relationships with academic editors Thank you Too long; didn't read Truce Unblock perspectives We are all Wikipedians here You have a right to remain silent
Philosophy	A thank you never hurts A weak personal attack is still wrong Advice for hotheads An uncivil environment is a poor environment Be the glue Beware of the tigers! Civility warnings Deletion as revenge Failure Forgive and forget It's not the end of the world Nobody cares Most people who disagree with you on content are not vandals Old-fashioned Wikipedian values Profanity, civility, and discussions Revert notification opt-out Shadowless Fists of Death! Staying cool when the editing gets hot The grey zone The last word There is no Divine Right of Editors Most ideas are bad Nothing is clear Reader The rules of polite discourse There is no common sense Two wrongs don't make a right Misplaced Pages clichés Misplaced Pages is not about winning Misplaced Pages should not be a monopoly Writing for the opponent
Dos	Assume good faith Assume the assumption of good faith Assume no clue Avoid personal remarks Avoid the word "vandal" Be excellent to one another Be pragmatic Beyond civility Call a spade a spade Candor Deny recognition Desist Discussing cruft Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass Encourage full discussions Get over it How to lose Imagine others complexly Just drop it Keep it concise Keep it down to earth Mind your own business Say "MOBY" Mutual withdrawal Read before commenting Settle the process first
Don'ts	ALPHABETTISPAGHETTI Misplaced Pages:Because I can Civil POV pushing Cyberbullying Don't accuse someone of a personal attack for accusing of a personal attack Don't be a fanatic Don't be a jerk Don't be an ostrich Don't be ashamed Don't be a WikiBigot Don't be high-maintenance Don't be inconsiderate Don't be obnoxious Don't be prejudiced Don't be rude Don't be the Fun Police Don't bludgeon the process Don't call a spade a spade Don't call people by their real name Don't call the kettle black Don't call things cruft Don't come down like a ton of bricks Don't cry COI Don't demand that editors solve the problems they identify Don't eat the troll's food Don't fight fire with fire Don't give a fuck Don't help too much Don't ignore community consensus Don't knit beside the guillotine Don't make a smarmy valediction part of your signature Don't remind others of past misdeeds Don't shout Don't spite your face Don't take the bait Don't template the regulars Don't throw your toys out of the pram Do not insult the vandals Griefing Hate is disruptive Nationalist editing No angry mastodons just madmen No Nazis No racists No Confederates No queerphobia No, you can't have a pony Passive aggression POV railroad Superhatting There are no oracles There's no need to guess someone's preferred pronouns You can't squeeze blood from a turnip UPPERCASE
WikiRelations	WikiBullying WikiCrime WikiHarassment WikiHate WikiLawyering WikiLove WikiPeace

Essays on notability

Humorous essays

About essays

About essays	Essay guide Value of essays Difference between policies, guidelines and essays Don't cite essays as if they were policy Avoid writing redundant essays Finding an essay Quote your own essay
Policies and guidelines	About policies and guidelines Policies Guidelines How to contribute to Misplaced Pages guidance Policy writing is hard

Categories:

Misplaced Pages

:Revert only when necessary: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages