Wikipedia talk:Edit warring/Archives/2015/October
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Betty Logan in topic Rule clarification
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Rule clarification
User:Betty Logan, I guess my clarification was a) incorrect, b) unclear itself, c) already obvious, or d) a combination of the above. I'd appreciate some clarification on that. Thanks. zzz (talk) 10:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- How about unneccessary? Your change did not not add any extra clarity, and in my view introduced ambiguity. I also think you misinterpreted the rule: a bold edit followed by three reverts is not necessarily a violation of the rule. It may still count as edit-warring, but a bold edit that does not revert another editor's actions followed by three consecutive reverts only counts as one revert. A bold edit that is not a revert followed by three non-consecutive reverts only counts as three reverts. I feel the rule is already adequately explained and captures all the subtleties, which your edit did not do. Betty Logan (talk) 18:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- Ok, it was just an attempt to sum it up in one sentence, for my own sake really. What I have never understood is, under what circumstances would a bold edit not count as a revert? zzz (talk) 22:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- An edit would count as a revert if you in any way partially reverse another editor's edit. If you are adding content which has never previously been in the article then that is a bold edit. Betty Logan (talk) 23:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- Ok, it was just an attempt to sum it up in one sentence, for my own sake really. What I have never understood is, under what circumstances would a bold edit not count as a revert? zzz (talk) 22:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)