User talk:Legnogud

Welcome!

Hi, Legnogud. Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Nat Gertler (talk) 09:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 2018

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Lawfare. 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 be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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 lead to a block. Thank you. Nat Gertler (talk) 09:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I see you are a new editor. I'd like to advice to take a breath before continuing your edits related to Catalonia. In my experience such behavior based on one single topic leads always to a ban. And change to random IP's won't help. Really. Arcillaroja (talk) 12:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Lawfare shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Nat Gertler (talk) 15:40, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nat Gertler. I was not aware of this rule. I am more than willing to engage in a discussion with Arcillaroja on the language or content of the entry he vandalized a few days ago and has been deleting repeatedly. The entry is not mine. But I think it has legitimate sources and reflects a reality. So I am ready to defend it with arguments (and even to improve its language, if necessary). But I think the entry should stay while we discuss it. Otherwise, Arcillaroja's vandalizing behavior would succeed in its objectives: to keep that information away from Wikipedia readers. So please, Arcillaroja, refrain from deleting the entry again. We can have rational discussion on the Talk page and exchange arguments, in order to make sure that the entry is as accurate as possible. Otherwise. I will have to ask the intervention of an admin. Thank you.

A few quick notes in response.

Arcillaroja is unlikely to see this request here; that editor is probably not following this page, which is your user talk page. If you want the other folks editing the article to see such a request, put it on Talk:Lawfare.
Avoid referring to this edit as "vandalism", because on Wikipedia that term has a specific definition, to which this does not apply. By bringing "NNPO", they are raising the question of whether the source is sufficiently neutral in this situation that their judgment of whether the term "lawfare" applies is reliable. (Or at least I assume; they're leaving the last letter off of WP:NNPOV.) That is a valid content question. (Note: I am not taking any side on the answer.
Arcillaroja does not appear to have been the only editor to have removed the material.
If you were to try to bring an admin in at this stage, they would almost certainly point to our WP:BRD essay - which stands for Bold, Revert, Discuss. Be bold in adding material, and when someone reverts you, start discussing, and reach consensus before readding the material. Someone was bold in making the initial edit, that edit was reverted, the next step should be discussion, not edit war.

And I've taken so long to type this that it looks like you've started the discussion without needing the advice. Good on you! I will go take a look. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:28, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the advice. I will refrain from calling vandalism, then. Sorry for any inconvenience. I am not a regular editor here. Besides opening a discussion in the Talk page, I have also modified the original entry in lawfare, in order to qualify its assertions and attribute them to the author of the piece given as source. Hopefully that will be enough to satisfy Arcillaroja. Thanks again for your time.