User talk:Rick-Levitt

Hi Rick
Hi Rick. thanks for the honor! I appreciate it. I guess this puts you way up on my list of Wikipedians as well! Out of curiousity, which of my contributions drew your attention? thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 13:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Tone it down
Given it's a bit much to accuse me of "edit warrring" after two reversions. In the future, consider finding a less provocative way of voicing your concerns. Thanks.—DCGeist 16:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) My breadth of contributions to United States
 * 2) My collaboration with other editors on the article as reflected by the Talk page
 * 3) The other contributor's lack of any previous involvement with the article; and
 * 4) My full explanations in both edit summaries


 * As I said on your talk page you are in the right (OWTTE). Consider finding a less provocative way of voicing your concerns seems a bit tongue-in-cheek for my liking but I am willing to dismiss this personal attack on the basis that you have been here a lot longer. Can you explain or point out the three revert rule to me if you will. Thanks.

PS if you are kind you could make your way to my Top 5 Rick-Levitt Talk Contribs 17:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You seem to have acquired a remarkable amount of Wikipedia procedural jargon for someone who joined the project only three days ago. I don't think that's a terribly healthy thing--but it's a general problem with the encyclopedia (see WP:NOT), and one I only wish I could claim immunity to. Since you've been infected with the jargon bug and there's no known cure, using it rarely and using it properly is the best we can hope for. Reverting an edit from a user with no experience on an article a couple times while fully explaining the revert in the edit summary is behavior quite far from engaging in an "edit war." The sentence "Consider finding a less provocative way of voicing your concerns" is very, very far from a "personal attack." It's not very productive for any of us to throw around these terms when we could be editing--researching and improving articles, which is what I trust you joined Wikipedia to do.
 * The three-revert rule essentially means that you must not revert another editor's (or editors') edits to an article in order to restore it to your preferred version more than three times in any 24-hour span. Let's look at the instance that first brought me to your attention (I'm curious--what inspired you to examine and analyze the article's edit history? And then stage your intervention? That's really unusual behavior from someone involved in Wikipedia at that point for only a day and a half.) I reverted twice in under an hour. If Avargasm had then restored his edit, I would have been allowed to revert it just once more over the next 23 hours without violating the three-revert rule and risking a block. Note that the three-revert rule would not have prevented me from making other edits to the article in that time; it would, however, apply to broader edits that also reverted the material under contention. As Avargasm has an insubstantial edit history, dealing with the matter simply via edit summary seemed sufficient--as, indeed, it turned out to be. Hope that clarifies things. Feel free to ask me anything else--I can be prickly at first, but I do like to help. Best, Dan.—DCGeist 18:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, firstly, I did not understand the bureaucracy page, a little over my head. Secondly, I'm sorry that I have a jargon bug. Thirdly, again I repent for my hyperbole about edit warring and finally thankyou for clearing up my query on the WP:3RR I was not suggesting it in anyway for United States. Oh and I hinted but can you clear up bureaucracy and jargon bugs please. Thanks. Rick-LevittContribs 18:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

PS. You've made it into my | Top 5


 * Thanks, mate, I appreciate it.
 * The point about WP:NOT is that we as Wikipedians can sometimes get too wrapped up in policing and enforcing all the little rules and procedures that are part of this process and lose sight of our primary mission: producing a quality free encyclopedia. I realize that link might be a little dense (and jargon-y itself). Here's another one that's shorter, more direct, and a cornerstone of Wikipedia's philosophy: WP:Ignore all rules. In sum: Priority 1—improve and maintain the encyclopedia.
 * As for the related "jargon bug," I'm simply talking about how we can become preoccupied with applying these little catchphrases to various situations—Did X commit a "personal attack"? Was Y "uncivil"? Is Z a "troll"?—again distracting us from what our focus should be (they can also unnecessarily distract the people we apply them to--like the way I got all exercised about "edit war"). I speak from personal experience--on a couple occassions I've devoted myself to grappling with transgressors I've identified. In serious cases, that can be absolutely necessary, but often that time and energy can be better spent—once again—improving the encyclopedia.—DCGeist 19:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree even though I am a culrpit. Rick-LevittContribs 19:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Revert
No problem. Tomayres 17:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Transformers (film)
The previous edit to Transformers (film) changed the release date to be 2007-07-04. While the original marketing material had that as a release date it actually debuted on 2007-07-02, which is what I reverted to. My comment about "over there" is really sour grapes, because in the UK we had to wait until 2007-07-27! ;-) -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 19:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * So in UK, it was on the second or fourth and likewise US? I don't understand. Rick-Levitt Talk Contribs 20:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No... in the US it was released on July 2nd, but the user that I reverted changed the article to say that it was released on July 4th.-- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 20:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok thankyou it is clear now. Rick-Levitt Talk Contribs 08:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Semi-Protected Pages
Out of interest, what page were you trying to edit when you got the semi-protection warning (and why did you ask me?) I cannot change the semi-protection status of an account, but I can change the protection status of a specific page. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It does not matter now, My account is not yet four days old, I turned to admin for help thats'll.--Rick-LevittContribs 09:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok; I asked those question to see if I could have done something to either see how long you need to wait or change the protection status of an article. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)