| Revision as of 06:39, 11 August 2020 editSchroCat (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers113,053 edits OneClickArchiver archived ITN recognition for Alan Parker to User talk:SchroCat/Archive 30← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:39, 11 August 2020 edit undoSchroCat (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers113,053 edits OneClickArchiver archived Reversion of edits for findagrave entries to User talk:SchroCat/Archive 30Next edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| I am aware of the requirements and restrictions and need no "reminding". Any placing of the note will be reverted, probably with an appropriate response.}} | I am aware of the requirements and restrictions and need no "reminding". Any placing of the note will be reverted, probably with an appropriate response.}} | ||
| {{archives|search=yes|auto=short|image = File:Felix.svg}} | {{archives|search=yes|auto=short|image = File:Felix.svg}} | ||
| == Reversion of edits for findagrave entries == | |||
| I note your wholesale reversion of six edits that I made today, which added findagrave entries to the external links sections of the pages. You also requested that I "stop adding this as a link to various pages". I have re-read ]; contrary to your implied rejection of the link, there is no mandatory exclusion regarding findagrave entries as external links. | |||
| Whilst I accept that some of the edits were to findagrave entries that did not include images and location information of graves, ] is quite specific that "Sometimes, a link is acceptable because of a specific, unique feature or information that is not available elsewhere, such as valuable images and location information of graves." | |||
| I have therefore reverted your reversion of the entry for Danny La Rue, and will verify whether or not others I added do meet the requirements of ], and act accordingly as I see fit within the guidelines. If you still have concerns, I respectfully recommend you see arbitration for the removal of the findagrave entry for that page. ] (]) 16:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :{{u|ParWoet}}, It's a crap site that really, ''really'' shouldn't be used. Please don't just revert (that is never the best course of action), but use the article talk page to discuss, per ]. - ] (]) 16:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::Your somewhat emotive opinion that "It's a crap site" will never justify a rejection of its use as an external link. When you ask me to not just revert but use the article page to discuss, remember that it was you who made the first reversion with the bald statement as I noted in my first paragraph above. As you yourself wrote, "Please don't just revert (that is never the best course of action), but use the article talk page to discuss, per ]." | |||
| ::As you considered it worthwhile to revert my additions to pages today - of which there are six first and one second reversion, you may wish to consider discussion BEFORE reversion, rather than continue and, apparently, search my previous edits and, for example, remove one change I made to the pre-existing findagrave entry for ], otherwise your efforts may have the appearance of a personal vendetta. Please, in future, if you do not agree with the addition of a findagrave entry, discuss first before you revert and not afterwards. Bear in mind that a second same-day reversion of the same thing accompanied by an unqualified rejection is not conducive to further discussion and smacks of edit warring. At the same time, I maintain that it is acceptable to make edits to add a findagrave entry that I claim is justified within the terms of ], and it is not acceptable to simply revert them without entering into a discussion that does not consist of a mere single opinion rejection.] (]) 16:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::Wrong on many levels there. If you add something sub-standard, I do not have to discuss removing it - that's just not the way this place works. You make a '''B'''old (but poor) edit and I '''R'''emove it, then it's time for you to '''D'''iscuss. I'm not going to discuss removing crap before I remove it - I certainly don't have to do that at all. If you don't like what I've reverted, then use the article talk pages to discuss for wider input: I doubt you'll get much take up here. - ] (]) 16:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ==Please let me know what I can do to help== | ==Please let me know what I can do to help== | ||
| Again, I'm sorry you're still so upset. Please let me know what I can do to help with the situation. --] (]) 15:17, 10 August 2020 (UTC) | Again, I'm sorry you're still so upset. Please let me know what I can do to help with the situation. --] (]) 15:17, 10 August 2020 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 06:39, 11 August 2020
Do not leave the DS alert for infoboxes on this page.
I am aware of the requirements and restrictions and need no "reminding". Any placing of the note will be reverted, probably with an appropriate response.
|
Archives |
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Please let me know what I can do to help
Again, I'm sorry you're still so upset. Please let me know what I can do to help with the situation. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:17, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
- Just fuck off. Stop posting here. Delete the stalker list from your use space AND STOP FUCKING FOLLOWING ME AROUND. See WP:HARASSMENT if you’re in any doubt about how creepy you are being. - SchroCat (talk) 16:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)