| Revision as of 21:14, 16 December 2005 editEl Sandifer (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users19,528 edits Tagged this sensibly← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:53, 16 December 2005 edit undoPeter McConaughey (talk | contribs)689 edits Added Advanced Methods and See AlsoNext edit → | ||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| :"If anyone makes a change that you don't like, don't revert it. Instead, talk about it on the article talk page or on their user talk page. This excludes ]." | :"If anyone makes a change that you don't like, don't revert it. Instead, talk about it on the article talk page or on their user talk page. This excludes ]." | ||
| This guideline is primarily for teams of contributors who want to avoid edit wars and assume good faith. | This guideline is primarily for teams of contributors who want to avoid edit wars and ]. | ||
| {{TOCright}} | |||
| ==Enforcement== | ==Enforcement== | ||
| This guideline is self-enforced. Those who try to incorporate the contributions of other editors will find that other editors generally treat them with the same respect. | This guideline is self-enforced. Those who try to incorporate the contributions of other editors will find that other editors generally treat them with the same respect. | ||
| ==Advanced Methods== | |||
| ===Incorporating the information of the edit in a neutral way=== | |||
| For those who have mastered talking about a contribution they don't like with the editor that proposed it, a more advanced method of implementing the 0RR can be to assume that some or all of the contribution of the other editor is valuable to society, even though it may not be formatted in an NPOV or cited manner. Given that a certain segment of society has this viewpoint, as evidenced by someone contributing it, trying to incorporate that information into the article makes the definition agreeable to more people. This strengthens the power of Misplaced Pages as a research tool in general. | |||
| ===Encouraging others to be polite=== | |||
| Reverting can feel like a slap in the face to someone who considers themselves to be competent and acting in good faith. Those who have mastered 0RR in their own lives may choose to restore an unkind revert of another editor with a friendly reminder to ] or ] as the case may warrant. This method may only be used to ''restore'' a bona fide revert, not to ''create'' a revert. | |||
| ==See also== | |||
| * ] | |||
| ] | ] | ||
Revision as of 21:53, 16 December 2005
The zero-revert rule states:
- "If anyone makes a change that you don't like, don't revert it. Instead, talk about it on the article talk page or on their user talk page. This excludes vandalism."
This guideline is primarily for teams of contributors who want to avoid edit wars and assume good faith.
Enforcement
This guideline is self-enforced. Those who try to incorporate the contributions of other editors will find that other editors generally treat them with the same respect.
Advanced Methods
Incorporating the information of the edit in a neutral way
For those who have mastered talking about a contribution they don't like with the editor that proposed it, a more advanced method of implementing the 0RR can be to assume that some or all of the contribution of the other editor is valuable to society, even though it may not be formatted in an NPOV or cited manner. Given that a certain segment of society has this viewpoint, as evidenced by someone contributing it, trying to incorporate that information into the article makes the definition agreeable to more people. This strengthens the power of Misplaced Pages as a research tool in general.
Encouraging others to be polite
Reverting can feel like a slap in the face to someone who considers themselves to be competent and acting in good faith. Those who have mastered 0RR in their own lives may choose to restore an unkind revert of another editor with a friendly reminder to assume good faith or don't bite the newbies as the case may warrant. This method may only be used to restore a bona fide revert, not to create a revert.