The Devil's Advocate (talk | contribs) →Please avoid edit-warring: new section |
→Please avoid edit-warring: Reply |
||
Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
Would you try not to revert the changes of other editors? You should discuss matters on the article talk page or the talk pages of specific editors rather than repeatedly reverting. Reverts should be used sparingly, if at all, with amicable resolution of disputes serving as the norm.--[[User:The Devil's Advocate|The Devil's Advocate]] ([[User talk:The Devil's Advocate|talk]]) 21:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC) |
Would you try not to revert the changes of other editors? You should discuss matters on the article talk page or the talk pages of specific editors rather than repeatedly reverting. Reverts should be used sparingly, if at all, with amicable resolution of disputes serving as the norm.--[[User:The Devil's Advocate|The Devil's Advocate]] ([[User talk:The Devil's Advocate|talk]]) 21:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC) |
||
--Hello I appreciate your taking the time to comment here. I believe that my recent edits have not been "reverts" but rather compromises, additions of citations, or other edits that acknowledge the concerns of other editors. Naturally however, I will keep your comment in mind.'''SPECIFICO''' 21:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:39, 4 September 2012
please read WP:EW
You have made 3 reverts in quick succion at Paul Ryan. There is a bright-line rule against exceding 3RR in 24 hours and your next edit will break that line. Such acts would be reported at WP:AN/EW. Note also that you could be blocked even if you do not hit the bright line, as your reverts and summaries show a clear intent to "edit war." Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
--Greetings, Collect. I don't believe that my adding high-quality references and inserting new wording that is a compromise with the critics of this sentence constitute 3 reverts under the EW rules.SPECIFICO 15:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Hi SPECIFICO - please take a sec and review the policy Collect has pointed to - also WP:BLP, which sets a high bar for sourcing controversial material and characterizations on bio pages. You've been adding some questionable material, including blogs and opinion pieces, and then trying to use these to justify a highly charge characterization such as "lie". As Collect said, if you persist to add these without trying to get consensus, you run the risk of being blocked. Ronnotel (talk) 16:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your note, Ronnotel. I presume you've reviewed the history of that section in the Ryan article. I attempted to add higher quality source citations after a previous editor had complained about National Review. I also feel that said previous editor's substitution of near-meaningless language "drew criticism" weakened the meaning of the section and attempted to be more specific in characterizing the cited sources' concern. At any rate, I'd be pleased to discuss this further on the Paul Ryan talk page if you wish.SPECIFICO 16:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Please avoid edit-warring
Would you try not to revert the changes of other editors? You should discuss matters on the article talk page or the talk pages of specific editors rather than repeatedly reverting. Reverts should be used sparingly, if at all, with amicable resolution of disputes serving as the norm.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
--Hello I appreciate your taking the time to comment here. I believe that my recent edits have not been "reverts" but rather compromises, additions of citations, or other edits that acknowledge the concerns of other editors. Naturally however, I will keep your comment in mind.SPECIFICO 21:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)