| Revision as of 03:51, 29 June 2018 editKingjeff (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users87,419 edits →Nomination of Luke Edwards for deletion← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:46, 29 June 2018 edit undoGeo Swan (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers112,843 edits →Could you please be more careful?: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
| You did not use the template for speedy deletion. ] (]) 03:51, 29 June 2018 (UTC) | You did not use the template for speedy deletion. ] (]) 03:51, 29 June 2018 (UTC) | ||
| == Could you please be more careful? == | |||
| In your edit summary ''"Reverted to revision 847728393 by 2605:8D80:62C:7EEE:DF30:7C4A:D338:A99A: A NEWPAPER article is being used to psychoanalyze someone? Not MEDRS compliant,"'' of {{noping|CommotioCerebri}}. In I wrote ''"If you think ] is relevant here, is there a reason you didn't cite a '''specific passage''' you think is relevant?"'' | |||
| The best thing we can all do to avoid edit wars is to avoid leaving triggers for edit warring. | |||
| Do you think you could explain your concern more fully, on ]? ] (]) 11:46, 29 June 2018 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 11:46, 29 June 2018
 Archives |
|---|
|
- It's clean-up duty, mopping up after the dishonest, incompetent, and fanatical. Can't imagine why you'd have a problem with that.
Some ground rules before you leave a message
- I am not an admin. I did not delete your page or article, nor did I block you. I may have, at the very most, suggested or urged deletion of pages or articles but I have no power or ability to do so on my own. I'm just an editor.
- This also means, of course, I cannot undelete your page/article, nor unblock you. I can, however, offer you a cookie.
- If you are here to make an argument dependent on arcane or convoluted interpretations of Misplaced Pages guidelines or rules, note that Misplaced Pages is not game of nomic nor a court of law. Adherence to common sense and rational argument trumps ruleslawyering, as far as I'm concerned. I've been there, done that, got the t-shirt, thankyouverymuch.
- There is no Rule 4.
- Don't post when drunk. Seriously.
- All communication sent via the "E-mail this user" link is considered public, at my discretion. Reasonable requests for confidentiality will be honored, but the whole "e-mail is sacrosanct and private" argument I do not buy for one solitary second. Do not expect to use that argument as an all-purpose shield.
- Do not assume I'm stupid, especially when arguing for something obviously untrue. I do not respond well to having my intelligence insulted.
- Don't lie to me like I'm Montel Williams. Do I look like Montel Williams? Do I? NO? Then don't lie to me like I'm Montel Williams.
- Especially bogus, hostile, and/or trolling remarks are subject to disemvoweling.
- Please post at the bottom of the page and "sign" your posts using the squiggly things (--~~~~).
- Please extinguish all cigarettes, as this is a No Smoking page.
- Thank you. -- The Management.
|
Nomination of Luke Edwards for deletion
I tried looking for the Articles for deletion page where the relevant discussion would take place. There was no such page until less than 30 minutes ago. I wasn't wrong to delete that template since there was no such page. Kingjeff (talk) 20:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
I have been here for a while. But the point I was making is that this page was created about 12 hours after this edit. The "Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion" page wasn't created when I deleted the template from the article. Kingjeff (talk) 00:44, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
The issue is you didn't complete the process immediately. I took down the template after around eight hours without any deletion discussion page being created. This could have been avoided if everything was done immediately. I don't mean that you had bad intentions or anything like that. But preferably, creating the article's deletion discussion page should be done immediately after adding the template to the article. Kingjeff (talk) 02:46, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
You did not use the template for speedy deletion. Kingjeff (talk) 03:51, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Could you please be more careful?
In this edit your edit summary "Reverted to revision 847728393 by 2605:8D80:62C:7EEE:DF30:7C4A:D338:A99A: A NEWPAPER article is being used to psychoanalyze someone? Not MEDRS compliant," echoes the concerns of CommotioCerebri. In my reply I wrote "If you think WP:MEDRS is relevant here, is there a reason you didn't cite a specific passage you think is relevant?"
The best thing we can all do to avoid edit wars is to avoid leaving triggers for edit warring.
Do you think you could explain your concern more fully, on Talk:crane climbing? Geo Swan (talk) 11:46, 29 June 2018 (UTC)