![]() | 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. |
"If an editor violates 3RR by mistake, they should
reverse their own most recent reversion, if no other edits are done after it."
This is proposed to enable partial automated detection.
"Edit warring and 3RR violations are not detected automatically. This is intentional, otherwise too many false positives would occur."
No policy change, explanation added.
"Reverting your own actions ("self-reverting"). However, if you revert the same change three times, it counts even if it is your own edit."
"Reverting edits to pages in your own user space, so long as you are respecting the
user page guidelines. Again, if you revert the same change three times, this time with no other edits between, it still counts."
Self-revert in Wikipedia is like self-plagiarism in academia.
"Removal of other content that is clearly illegal under the law of target countries (US
[1], UK, India
[2] in case of English Wikipedia), such as
child pornography and
links to pirated software."
Policy change to accomodate content provider and the target jurisdiction definitions around the world.
Erkin Alp Güney 19:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
This factual statement was reverted, so here I am awaiting WP:CONSENSUS to see if users know it exist.
Here is an ArbCom remedy for
Arab-Israeli conflict articles which states that All IP editors, users with fewer than 500 edits, and users with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing content within the area of conflict. ...Reverts made solely to enforce the 500/30 Rule are not considered edit warring.
. Key words: not ... edit warrning.
Here was a community authorized 500/30 editing restriction on all
India-Pakistan conflict articles. And once again, On pages that are not protected, edits made contrary to the prohibition may be but are not required to be reverted without regard for the three-revert rule.
exempt from edit warrning rules.
So if no one objects (which there shouldn't), I'll go ahead and restore my reverted edit. {{
replyto}}
Can I Log In's
(talk) page
20:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
This user is violating the article; r 2001:8003:181F:6400:434:11CC:F9B8:7359 -- Orange2000 ( talk) 12:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
![]() | 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. |
"If an editor violates 3RR by mistake, they should
reverse their own most recent reversion, if no other edits are done after it."
This is proposed to enable partial automated detection.
"Edit warring and 3RR violations are not detected automatically. This is intentional, otherwise too many false positives would occur."
No policy change, explanation added.
"Reverting your own actions ("self-reverting"). However, if you revert the same change three times, it counts even if it is your own edit."
"Reverting edits to pages in your own user space, so long as you are respecting the
user page guidelines. Again, if you revert the same change three times, this time with no other edits between, it still counts."
Self-revert in Wikipedia is like self-plagiarism in academia.
"Removal of other content that is clearly illegal under the law of target countries (US
[1], UK, India
[2] in case of English Wikipedia), such as
child pornography and
links to pirated software."
Policy change to accomodate content provider and the target jurisdiction definitions around the world.
Erkin Alp Güney 19:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
This factual statement was reverted, so here I am awaiting WP:CONSENSUS to see if users know it exist.
Here is an ArbCom remedy for
Arab-Israeli conflict articles which states that All IP editors, users with fewer than 500 edits, and users with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing content within the area of conflict. ...Reverts made solely to enforce the 500/30 Rule are not considered edit warring.
. Key words: not ... edit warrning.
Here was a community authorized 500/30 editing restriction on all
India-Pakistan conflict articles. And once again, On pages that are not protected, edits made contrary to the prohibition may be but are not required to be reverted without regard for the three-revert rule.
exempt from edit warrning rules.
So if no one objects (which there shouldn't), I'll go ahead and restore my reverted edit. {{
replyto}}
Can I Log In's
(talk) page
20:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
This user is violating the article; r 2001:8003:181F:6400:434:11CC:F9B8:7359 -- Orange2000 ( talk) 12:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)