User talk:SaskatchewanSenator/reverting
Reverting
[edit]<copied from here> :Hi, In regards to your note, as I understand edit warring, it is repeatedly editing rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion. I don't know if you saw, but I have been making every effort to engage in a discussion to reach consensus. I have tried to initiate discussion with a proposal on the policy's talk page, through WP:CYCLE, comments in edit summaries and notes on the reverting users talk pages. There has been no response on the appropriate talk page. What more can I do?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 06:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- What you're doing is repeatedly reverting without gaining consensus for your changes, this is edit warring even if you're making good faith efforts to discuss your changes on the talk page. When edits are reverted, then gaining active consensus for your changes is absolutely necessary, especially when editing Wikipedia Policies. What you stated here is incorrect, receiving what you perceive to be a lack of response from the editors reverting you is no excuse for edit warring; continuing to revert as you have been doing on WP:NOR will only lead to your being blocked.
- My suggestion is to stop reverting, and continue to make a case for your proposed changes on the talk page; start an WP:RFC, engage a mediator or take other steps as outlined in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution - but continuing on your current path will only lead to getting blocked.
- For convenience, please respond here, I've got your talk page watchlisted. Dreadstar ☥ 08:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice. My goal with those reverts was solely to encourage discussion. I'll try one of your suggestions instead.
- I think you misunderstood what I meant in the diff that you pointed out above. A better way to say what I intended is: "If there is no opposition to a proposal on a talk page, it will look like there is consensus."--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 16:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- You're right, I did misunderstand what you were saying there. Thanks for clarifying! Dreadstar ☥ 21:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- PS Looking at WP:EW again, I see that the policy prohibits repeated reverting, with very limited exceptions. Athough it is not clear from the lead, neither trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion (as I thought) nor "gaining consensus for your changes" (as you mentioned above), are exceptions.
- Indeed, there are very few exceptions for edit warring, and even if your edits are correct and actually have consensus, you can still be blocked for engaging in edit warring. Glad you looked at it in more detail! Dreadstar ☥ 16:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- PS Looking at WP:EW again, I see that the policy prohibits repeated reverting, with very limited exceptions. Athough it is not clear from the lead, neither trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion (as I thought) nor "gaining consensus for your changes" (as you mentioned above), are exceptions.
- You're right, I did misunderstand what you were saying there. Thanks for clarifying! Dreadstar ☥ 21:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- I think you misunderstood what I meant in the diff that you pointed out above. A better way to say what I intended is: "If there is no opposition to a proposal on a talk page, it will look like there is consensus."--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 16:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)