Hi Jjj3190! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version ofAirbnb several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that theedit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.
I have removed the RfC tags from the discussion onTalk:Airbnb. It is not appropriate to launch an RfC before making any attempt to discuss the matter. Thousands of contributions are reverted every day, if we were to hold an RfC every time someone was unhappy their contribution had been reverted the community would get absolutely nothing done.Adam Blacktalk •contribs22:35, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is fair Adam - I used it because the editor had already begun a discussion on my talk page where I explained my reasoning and theWP:BRD cycle, and then reverted my edit. Will be less hasty in the future!glman (talk)00:18, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
I’m glad you acknowledged my edit was made in good faith. That recognition matters, but so does the time and care I put into it. I have to be honest—seeing the entire contribution reverted without distinction was disheartening. This wasn’t a quick tweak; it was a multifaceted, carefully sourced effort that took hours to research, write, and format.
Wikipedia’s reverting policy doesn’t just allow partial reverts—it strongly encourages them when only part of an edit is disputed. The expectation is that editors engage with the substance of a contribution, not erase it wholesale unless it’s clearly disruptive or unsalvageable. That’s not just policy—it’s the spirit of collaboration that keeps Wikipedia alive.
I’m asking, respectfully, that you go through the content line by line and preserve what’s worth keeping. If that feels like too much work, I understand—but in that case, I’d suggest stepping back and letting someone else take over. Because throwing away good-faith, policy-aligned work isn’t just unfair, it’s contrary to what this platform stands for.
I’m open to revising anything that doesn’t meet standards. But I’d like to see the same level of care given to evaluating the work as I gave to creating it.
While Glman did place the edit war template too soon, I do agree that your edits have introduced an anti-AirBNB bias. There isn't much, if anything to salvage. I understand how this could anger you, but having large edits removed is something that has happened to all of us in our early days and continues to happen if we make large mistakes.Mikeycdiamond (talk)11:16, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. I’d like to clarify something important about tone and neutrality:
There seems to be a conflation between biased tone and critical content, and these are not the same. Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy doesn’t prohibit coverage of controversies or criticisms—it requires that they be presented fairly, proportionally, and with reliable sourcing.
Criticism of a company, especially when well-documented, may inherently sound negative. Bias, however, arises when the language editorializes, makes unsupported claims, or fails to attribute viewpoints. None of this occurred . If the content is sourced, attributed, and reflects verifiable coverage in reliable outlets, then it belongs in the article—even if it sounds biased.
I have significant writing experience, despite my lack of history as an editor on Wikipedia. I totally support refining the language to ensure neutrality; in fact, I've already done this on the talk page. I’d simply ask that we evaluate the content based on policy and sourcing. Otherwise, we risk sanitizing the article and omitting notable, verifiable information.Jjj3190 (talk)12:02, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I looked over the RfC. While I would recommend against adding your old edit back, the RfC looks mostly fine. The one suggestion I have is that you should put the name of a publication or author instead of constantly using the word critics.Mikeycdiamond (talk)12:50, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'mGlman. An edit that you recently made toTalk:Airbnb seemed to be generated using alarge language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology). Text produced by these applications can beunsuitable for an encyclopedia, and output must be carefully checked. Your edit may have beenreverted. If you want to practice editing, please useyour sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message onmy talk page. I strongly encouage you to reviewWP:LLM and note that "Using LLMs to write one's talk page comments or edit summaries, in a non-transparent way, is strongly discouraged." even if done in good faithglman (talk)20:42, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Consider this afinal warning. If you persist in using LLMs to generate your content...whether on an article or a talk page... as opposed to curating content, you will be blocked. Please carefully readWikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#LLM-generated. We do not want to hear from a LLM in order to generate consensus. If that were the case, we'd just leave all the consensus generation to bots. Nobody would have to edit the project anymore. This behaviormust end. Further, please carefully readWikipedia:Large language models. --Hammersoft (talk)23:22, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You claim you "limited use of AI to enhance readability and neutrality". Please provide here on your talk page the original comments you wrote for the RfC and for your comments at ANI before you made this limited use of AI so we can assess this limited use.Nil Einne (talk)07:38, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jjj3190! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version ofAirbnb several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that theedit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.