User talk:HouseplantHobbyist

May 2024

Your recent editing history at Lucy Letby shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Theroadislong (talk) 09:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I would be keen for you to clarify this for me further, as my two most recent edits which you have determined are edit warring do not appear to be in violation of WP:BLPRESTORE, which says that *if it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first". My two most recent edits were *not* verbatim restorations, they involved that significant change which is referred to in that policy line.

I originally added this line to the starting section: [1]. However, Sirfurboy raised a partial objections and removed it entirely, saying "This passive voice addition is predicated off primary sourced information and is not leadworthy": [2]. Taking this objection into account, I dropped the bit in the passive voice which he alluded to, and significantly changed it to just "Tests showed that two of the victims had been poisoned with exogenous pharmaceutical insulin": [3]. This involves a significant change to the original edit, not a like-for-like reversion.

Likewise, I originally had originally altered the Aviv wording here: [4]. However, Sirfurboy reverted entirely and raised a partial objection, saying: "She didn't allege - she was reporting. Staffing levels are a matter of fact, and the claims about the poor outcomes come from other sources. The poor healthcare outcomes are central to that report and thus should be included": [5]. Again, taking this objection as to the replacing of the word "reporting" with allege in terms of the staffing shortage, I dropped this element for the staffing line and tried again with a significant change and with a detailed edit summary, here: [6]. This edit also involved many other new smaller tweaks in order to try and comply with other policies. This edit was therefore also a significant change and not a like-for-like reversion.

These are also the only times I've done this for these two points. I haven't done so three times.

Because of this, I'd just kindly like to ask if you did not realise this when you deleted my edits on the overall grounds of edit warring. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 09:57, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

It might be advisable to discuss your edits on the article talk page first, to gain consensus. Theroadislong (talk) 10:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

You also removed this which you removed before and had previously been reverted Letby pleaded not guilty, and told a subsequent Nursing and Midwifery Council disciplinary panel that she is innocent. You can't say that was just a rewording. In any case, a 3RR warning is used well when it is used early. The point is to let a new user (such as a user who has made just 40 edits) know about the rule, before any rapid escalation of reverts leads to an unfortunate block. You must surely see how an inexperienced editor could get caught out by that, and the warning should be taken in the good faith it was intended. You would be well advised to take the issues to the talk page and discuss them there (and as I write this, I get an edit conflict and see Theroadislong has made the same point). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)