| Revision as of 00:39, 13 December 2005 editFreestylefrappe (talk | contribs)4,471 edits you're lies are amusing...but quite see-through← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:15, 13 December 2005 edit undoCreidieki (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers3,838 edits Removing article contentNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| Freestylefrappe, I'm going to have to ask that you stop removing content from that article without consensus. It wasn't acceptable when Bitola did it, and it's not acceptable when you do it either. If you have a problem with legitimate, good faith edits, please discuss on the talk page -- don't just pretend that calling it "nonsense" makes it OK to remove. I'm going to reinstate the relevant content exactly once. I assume you will then revert it, but I hope that I can get you to engage in constructive dialogue on the article's talk page instead. Thanks, ] (]) 00:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC) | Freestylefrappe, I'm going to have to ask that you stop removing content from that article without consensus. It wasn't acceptable when Bitola did it, and it's not acceptable when you do it either. If you have a problem with legitimate, good faith edits, please discuss on the talk page -- don't just pretend that calling it "nonsense" makes it OK to remove. I'm going to reinstate the relevant content exactly once. I assume you will then revert it, but I hope that I can get you to engage in constructive dialogue on the article's talk page instead. Thanks, ] (]) 00:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC) | ||
| :Bitola...you're BS amuses me. ] 00:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC) | :Bitola...you're BS amuses me. ] 00:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC) | ||
| == Removing article content == | |||
| Hello, | |||
| I've been asked to take a look at this article by ]. I've had quite a bit of difficulty following the dispute, largely because the communication seems to have happened almost entirely in the various edit summaries. I've reverted to what seemed to be the longest and most complete version of the article, so that we can discuss the material. I'd like to ask the following: | |||
| *That users removing copyvio material from the article post the source of the copyright violation on the talk page, so that we can verify the copyright violation. | |||
| *That users removing noncopyvio material from the article move the material to the Talk page, rather than deleting it outright. This prevents material from being lost between revisions, and allows us to have constructive discussions about the material. | |||
| *That users attempt to engage in discussion before reverting, and post their rationales to the talk page when reverting, rather than leaving comments in the edit summaries. | |||
| I hope that we can sort through these issues in a more productive manner. -- ] 02:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 02:15, 13 December 2005
Freestylefrappe, I'm going to have to ask that you stop removing content from that article without consensus. It wasn't acceptable when Bitola did it, and it's not acceptable when you do it either. If you have a problem with legitimate, good faith edits, please discuss on the talk page -- don't just pretend that calling it "nonsense" makes it OK to remove. I'm going to reinstate the relevant content exactly once. I assume you will then revert it, but I hope that I can get you to engage in constructive dialogue on the article's talk page instead. Thanks, Glenn Willen (Talk) 00:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Bitola...you're BS amuses me. freestylefrappe 00:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Removing article content
Hello,
I've been asked to take a look at this article by User:Glenn Willen. I've had quite a bit of difficulty following the dispute, largely because the communication seems to have happened almost entirely in the various edit summaries. I've reverted to what seemed to be the longest and most complete version of the article, so that we can discuss the material. I'd like to ask the following:
- That users removing copyvio material from the article post the source of the copyright violation on the talk page, so that we can verify the copyright violation.
- That users removing noncopyvio material from the article move the material to the Talk page, rather than deleting it outright. This prevents material from being lost between revisions, and allows us to have constructive discussions about the material.
- That users attempt to engage in discussion before reverting, and post their rationales to the talk page when reverting, rather than leaving comments in the edit summaries.
I hope that we can sort through these issues in a more productive manner. -- Creidieki 02:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)