Hi, can you make a comment about my new project Encyclopine.org
hi, Hi, can you make a comment about my new project Encyclopine.org?
- Yes, thank you for updating the statuses, and sorry about reverting those. However, I don't think you should be doing things like removing commas, removing indicators that an extinction was prehistoric, or changing the status symbols without prior discussion. I prefer the status indicators I'm using for several reasons: they are more intuitive, less intrusive, easier to read, and more selective in drawing attention to the greatest threats, in way way that does not require looking at the legend or even reading. WolfmanSF (talk) 22:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- That is a ridiculous accusation. Drastic, contested edits made without consensus are tantamount to vandalism. Reverting vandalism is not edit warring. Your intimidation tactics do not impress me. WolfmanSF (talk) 18:54, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- Please read and understand the definition of WP:VANDALISM accepted in wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:13, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- I wish to point out that there is a large degree of hubris and hypocrisy behind a warning not to engage in an edit war, coming from the editor who provoked the conflict and who also participated in it. However, he did the latter only after seeking and acquiring an ally, a process that took 1.5 years, during which time the article received about 216,038 page views. I, in contrast, did not solicit for allies. I also requested him to desist from reverting and focus on discussion prior to this warning, which he declined to do. So, I would say he was gaming the system. WolfmanSF (talk) 02:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- Note: WP:3RR is a bright-line rule. The edits by several people that you reverted were not vandalism, and certainly nothing like "obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism", as the policy puts it (bolding in the original). Bishonen | talk 19:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC).
- Thank you for clarifying that in an edit conflict, edits that blank a large fraction of a page, eliminating longstanding content, without consensus or even discussion, are evaluated on an equal basis with edits that restore that content. This is, in my view, a far from optimal analysis. Reforming the system would, unfortunately, require admins overseeing edit conflicts to do something more cerebral than just count. WolfmanSF (talk) 22:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi @WolfmanSF:. I was hoping that you might explain why you think that adding a link to a multi-access key for Eucalypts constitutes vandalism? (I thought it was helpful???) Regards, MargaretRDonald (talk) 23:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- Since I reverted back TO your edit, it was not your edit that I am labeling as vandalism, but rather the edits between yours and my revert. My previous edit was also a revert, most likely of the same individual using a different alias. Regards, WolfmanSF (talk) 00:25, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- The "undo" function after an edit in an article history allows one to revert a single edit at a time, but only if subsequent edits have not modified that section. However, clicking on the "prev" link before an edit in an article history brings up the option to "restore this version", an option that always works and which allows reverting multiple edits at once (if appropriate). The latter type of revert is what I used in this case. WolfmanSF (talk) 22:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I have reverted your edit to Mangrove because it inserted unsourced, non-neutral point-of-view material in front of an existing citation which did not support the new material. This was misleading and disruptive to the encyclopdia. Your edit summary was also misleading. - Donald Albury 12:31, 27 August 2018 (UTC) Comment struck. - Donald Albury 01:25, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- I suggest that in the future you determine who added what, before you start making accusations. WolfmanSF (talk) 18:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- My apologies. I conflated your edit with the prior one, but that does not excuse my actions. - Donald Albury 01:25, 28 August 2018 (UTC)