Eleutheria Sleuth

Welcome!

Hello, Eleutheria Sleuth, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Getting started
• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Lightbreather (talk) 19:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Re your revert

Hi, Eleutheria. Regarding these edits:[1][2]

To change "High-capacity or large-capacity magazines are generally considered to be those capable of holding more than 10 rounds" to "High-capacity or large-capacity magazines are sometimes defined in legislation to be those capable of holding more than 10 rounds" misrepresents the source.

However, because of your concerns, I made a compromise edit here[3] which changed the sentence to "High-capacity or large-capacity magazines are generally considered to be those capable of holding more than 10 rounds, although legal definitions vary." This absolutely represented what the source said/says. And, the sentence is followed by a statement about how the NRA views the term. If you have a good quality reliable, verifiable source, please add another statement, citing that source, but don't just revert the sourced statement to your preferred wording, which misrepresents what the source says. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 20:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

3RR warning

Your recent editing history [4][5][6] at High-capacity magazine shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

--Lightbreather (talk) 22:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Response

1. You have done three reverts, I have done an edit and two reverts. (At least according to H:REV i.e. the first edit was not a "page being restored to a previous version")
2. Posting a warning about 3RR and then reverting does nothing to answer what I've posted on your talk page.
3. Out of the two of us, I'm the only one who tried to move discussion to the talk page of the article, has provided in depth answers to every revert, and has sought mediation.

I'm sorry, but the source provided on High-capacity magazine in the context of what is "generally considered" to be a high-capacity magazine is either talking about a general consensus of legislative bodies, which the article would support, or about the general population, which the article does not support through references or research to back up that assertion. Eleutheria Sleuth (talk) 00:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

1. 3RR says "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." All three of the edits I linked to above undid another editor's actions.

2. If you'll notice, I started a discussion on the subject first above (Re your revert at 20:12, May 14, 2014). You posted on my talk page almost an hour later (Your Revert in High-Capacity Magazines at 21:01, 14 May 2014). I wish you'd replied to the discussion I'd started, so it would all be in one place. We now have discussions on both of our talk pages plus the article talk page. (FWIW, I don't think it's a policy that you have to reply where a discussion is started - I just personally get confused trying to keep track of the discussion when it's scattered.)

3. I disagree. I reached out first to discuss your concerns on your talk page. I didn't move it to the article's talk page because the dispute was between two editors (you and me). I did notice today that you started a 3O. I don't know if it's required, but I wish you'd told me. Lightbreather (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

2nd Response

1. I didn't "undo" your action, I provided more detail that you had left out of the source that you had cited. This is not "restoring it to a previous version," as I pointed out earlier.

2. How did you start a discussion on this first, when I mentioned it and another subject on the talk page of the article one minute after I posted my edit? [[7]] Also sorry if I wasn't supposed to write on your talk page, I was just trying to follow your lead after you posted on mine >< Probably should have just figured I should have stayed on my own, but it seemed like the article talk page was the best place to, not here?

3. As per point 2, I was the first to write about the topic. I'm confused? Wikipedia says to post concerns about the article's substance on the article talk page. Also, my apologies if it is standard procedure to notify the other editor when you are looking for dispute resolution, I didn't know/figured it was obvious things weren't getting settled :( Eleutheria Sleuth (talk) 21:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

BE Bold and be careful to not do 3R

Be careful as some are trolling wikipedia to set up a newer user into breaking one the bureaucratic rules. Many are here to just push an agenda which is unethical according to wikipedias guidelines. It is often easier and best to ignore the trolls and agenda warriors and go on to other articles and come back later. Sometimes it is better to not revert more than once per day. And finally rules are not always fairly or rightly applied as agendas and tribes often come first. And if you want to understand the biases of wikipedia just look at the foundation members and research them and that will give a better understanding. Thanks for trying anyway and good luck as you will need it along with much patience. 8 years and counting. 172.56.12.141 (talk) 04:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)