Misplaced Pages

User talk:Amaury: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:58, 2 June 2012 view sourceAmaury (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers98,254 editsm →Excuse me =← Previous edit Revision as of 03:07, 2 June 2012 view source 99.144.114.54 (talk) →Excuse meNext edit →
Line 57: Line 57:
In you labeled my removal of inappropriate material as vandalism. However, let it be known that the material you re-added is unencyclopedic (for example, the quotes section) and unstylistic (for example, the external link in the prose that directed a user to an unverified document of largely irrelevant information). Please be more careful next time. ] (]) 02:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC) In you labeled my removal of inappropriate material as vandalism. However, let it be known that the material you re-added is unencyclopedic (for example, the quotes section) and unstylistic (for example, the external link in the prose that directed a user to an unverified document of largely irrelevant information). Please be more careful next time. ] (]) 02:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
:My apologies. That should have been a neutral revert with a removal of content warning, not a vandalism warning. In the future, though, I would use ] to make it clear what you are doing so someone coming along doesn't mistake it as nonconstructive. Cheers! - ] (]) 02:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC) :My apologies. That should have been a neutral revert with a removal of content warning, not a vandalism warning. In the future, though, I would use ] to make it clear what you are doing so someone coming along doesn't mistake it as nonconstructive. Cheers! - ] (]) 02:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
::In fact, it should not have been reverted at all. No warning should have been given in accordance with the ] principle. Instead, you should have checked the entirety of my edit to evaluate the possible reasons it was made, and easily determined that it improved the article by increasing conformance to Misplaced Pages's style and content guidelines. A small personal note on the benefits of using edit summaries - not a warning - should have been given, but no revert should have occurred. It is your job as patroller to evaluate similar edits, as failure to include an edit summary never justifies a revert (that's why edit summaries are not required for every single edit). Next time, you need to look closely at everything that was removed and ask yourself whether it should be re-added back in its entirety, in part, or not at all. ] (]) 03:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:07, 2 June 2012

Last updated: 6/1/2012
It is approximately 7:28 PM where this user lives.


User:Donald Duck/Navbar

Hello! Welcome to my talk page!
Please feel free to to leave me a message, whether it's informing me of something
I screwed up, just to say hello, or anything else! I won't bite!

I have a few requests that I hope you'll respect while posting here:

  1. First and above all, be civil.
    • If you don't agree with an action I made, be it reverted you and left a warning, marked your page for deletion, or anything else, please be calm and polite. I am a reasonable man, and we'll straighten it out a lot quicker without screaming and name calling.
  2. Please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~)
  3. Please start new conversations at the bottom.
  4. I generally like to keep conversations together.
    • If you post here, I'll reply here and leave you a message informing you of my reply.
    • If I leave you a message on your talk page, I'll keep watching it, but if you want to make sure I notice it quickly, leave me a {{talkback}} template.
      • I always keep conversations together. If we separate the messages, no big deal, I'll probably go back and cross post here.
  5. Start new discussions with a level three heading.
Since that is out of the way, please click here and leave a message!
Archives
2009
2010
2011
2012

June 2012

Excuse me

In this edit you labeled my removal of inappropriate material as vandalism. However, let it be known that the material you re-added is unencyclopedic (for example, the quotes section) and unstylistic (for example, the external link in the prose that directed a user to an unverified document of largely irrelevant information). Please be more careful next time. 99.144.114.54 (talk) 02:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

My apologies. That should have been a neutral revert with a removal of content warning, not a vandalism warning. In the future, though, I would use edit summaries to make it clear what you are doing so someone coming along doesn't mistake it as nonconstructive. Cheers! - Zhou Yu (talk) 02:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
In fact, it should not have been reverted at all. No warning should have been given in accordance with the assume good faith principle. Instead, you should have checked the entirety of my edit to evaluate the possible reasons it was made, and easily determined that it improved the article by increasing conformance to Misplaced Pages's style and content guidelines. A small personal note on the benefits of using edit summaries - not a warning - should have been given, but no revert should have occurred. It is your job as patroller to evaluate similar edits, as failure to include an edit summary never justifies a revert (that's why edit summaries are not required for every single edit). Next time, you need to look closely at everything that was removed and ask yourself whether it should be re-added back in its entirety, in part, or not at all. 99.144.114.54 (talk) 03:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)