Anthonyse3 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
edit warring |
||
Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the [[Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule|three-revert rule]], which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-ewsoft --> [[User:Laser_brain|<span style="color: purple;">'''Laser brain'''</span>]] [[User_talk:Laser_brain|<span style="color: purple;">(talk)</span>]] 18:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC) |
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the [[Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule|three-revert rule]], which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-ewsoft --> [[User:Laser_brain|<span style="color: purple;">'''Laser brain'''</span>]] [[User_talk:Laser_brain|<span style="color: purple;">(talk)</span>]] 18:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC) |
||
==Edit warring== |
|||
[[File:Ambox warning pn.svg|30px|link=]] You currently appear to be engaged in an [[WP:Edit warring|edit war]]  according to the reverts you have made on [[:Graph database]]. Users are expected to [[Wikipedia:Consensus#In talk pages|collaborate]] with others, to avoid editing [[WP:Disruptive editing|disruptively]], and to [[WP:Consensus|try to reach a consensus]], rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. |
|||
Points to note: |
|||
# '''Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;''' |
|||
# '''Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.''' |
|||
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's [[Help:Talk pages|talk page]] to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an [[WP:Noticeboards|appropriate noticeboard]] or seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]. In some cases, it may be appropriate to [[WP:Requests for page protection|request temporary page protection]]. If you engage in an edit war, you '''may be [[WP:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing.'''<!-- Template:uw-ew --> <span style="background-color:lightblue">''''' [[User:Velella|Velella]] '''''</span><span style="background-color:lightblue"> <sup>''[[User talk:Velella|Velella]] Talk ''</sup> </span> 18:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:55, 22 August 2018
Hello Anthonyse3, additions to this list should be referenced to an independent reliable source with some in-depth coverage about the added product (not press releases, advertorials or similar PR publications). If you can provide such an independent non-promotional source, please feel free to re-add the entry. Please see also WP:PROMO and WP:COI for additional possibly useful information. GermanJoe (talk) 08:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
As I have responded to GermanJoe, its opinion is biased. I pointed out, according to its independent reference, ArangoDB should have been removed, as ArangoDB put their webpage link there. GemanJoe is conducting vandalism. It's has negative impact to the community. Anthonyse3 (talk) 18:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)Anthonyse3
Bad faith allegations
I have already explained why the addition doesn't meet the inclusion criteria for this list without better truely independent sources, and provided a Wikipedia-based rationale for the removal. This is not vandalism - but feel free to report me for this alleged "vandalism" if you really want to. I'll note that any such report will also look at the personal insults and bad faith allegations you posted on my user talkpage. I recommend to read WP:AGF and WP:NPA to refrain from further absolutely baseless and uncivil accusations. If you can't post a message without such personal attacks, don't bother to post at my user talk. I will remove such posts (see WP:OWNTALK).
To the matter at hand: neither source is an independent reliable source (see WP:RS), thus the addition doesn't meet the criteria for list inclusion (as described at WP:CSC). If you disagree, feel free to start a thread with your arguments on the article's talkpage Talk:Graph database but do not re-insert the entry (so-called "edit warring" is prohibited on Wikipedia, see also WP:BRD for a recommended approach). Regarding your argument about ArangoDB, you are correct about this specific reference. But ArandoDB also has a separate article where additional sources are provided - thus the quality (or lack of quality) of the ArangoDB ref is a secondary concern. But to improve the list I'll remove this source nonetheless. GermanJoe (talk) 18:32, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
August 2018
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Graph database. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Laser brain (talk) 18:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Edit warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Graph database. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Velella Velella Talk 18:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)