On 10/6/05, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, this is precisely why it's a 3RR rule, not a 1RR or 2RR rule :P This kind of editing is very common and to be encouraged, you two communicated with eachother and worked out an agreement. However, if any of you had, instead, actually broken the 3RR there would have been atleast 7 reverts (4 for the one who broke the rule, and 3 for the other) of the article. That is not healthy. The 3RR is there to force editors, just as it did with you guys, to work stuff out, outside of the edit summaries.
Unfortunatly, not everyone has the amount of common sense you guys have :P
That's what I saw, too. Perhaps the threat of 3RR was an unseen motivation to encourage everyone to actually try to work it out rather than insist on one's own version. I know it has been for me at least once, so even if I don't get bitten, the guard dog helps secure the property. ;-) It helps me pay attention a little better. (!)
-- Michael Turley User:Unfocused