Coherent reply policy
If I put a message on your talk page, I will be watching that page for a reply. If you leave a message here, I will reply here, unless you request otherwise.
- I don’t think the primary topic is a slam dunk. Needs to be discussed. I, for one, would like to see the discussion to help me decide. —В²C ☎ 04:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- Vice regent, do you now see how controversial it is? Regardless of how this ends up, the process/discussion is necessary. —В²C ☎ 00:10, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Wikipedia:No personal attacks. 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 lose their editing privileges. 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 result in loss of your editing privileges.
- Thank you. I know what edit warring is and I wasn’t. I only revert a revert when the initial revert is made without an explanation for their objection to the edit in question. If they refuse to explain/discuss, there is no way to develop consensus with them. In this case after I reverted an unexplained revert another editor reverted again, but this one explained their objection. Now we have something to work with (in discussion), and we wouldn’t be here had I not reverted when I did, and for which I just got dinged. Frankly, I think the reversion policy needs to be updated to allow reverts of unexplained reverts. For the sake of building consensus. Thank you. В²C ☎ 04:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- For the record, that second revert with explanation prompted me to start a discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks#Another_objection —В²C ☎ 05:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)