Revision as of 19:14, 8 April 2016 editMhhossein (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers24,846 edits →Revert: some more points← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:17, 8 April 2016 edit undoLugnuts (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers1,509,055 edits →RevertNext edit → | ||
Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
:Another AWB do-gooder who thinks everyone else is wrong when they don't know how to use AWB. I'll copy & paste rule 1 for you, as you're having trouble understanding: "You are responsible for every edit made. Do not sacrifice quality for speed and make sure you understand the changes." You then ignored other rules and blame the person reverting your mistakes. Pathetic. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 07:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC) | :Another AWB do-gooder who thinks everyone else is wrong when they don't know how to use AWB. I'll copy & paste rule 1 for you, as you're having trouble understanding: "You are responsible for every edit made. Do not sacrifice quality for speed and make sure you understand the changes." You then ignored other rules and blame the person reverting your mistakes. Pathetic. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 07:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC) | ||
::How did you jump into conclusion that I think "everyone else is wrong"! I'm not blaming anyone, you failed to say was it really necessary to a minor edit? was the quality of the article reduced or tarnished after ? By the way, the way you interact with other editors is not really constructive. Saying things such as {{tq|"who thinks everyone else is wrong"}}, {{tq|"you're having trouble understanding"}} and {{tq|"Pathetic"}} is far from a collegial approach. ] (]) 19:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC) | ::How did you jump into conclusion that I think "everyone else is wrong"! I'm not blaming anyone, you failed to say was it really necessary to a minor edit? was the quality of the article reduced or tarnished after ? By the way, the way you interact with other editors is not really constructive. Saying things such as {{tq|"who thinks everyone else is wrong"}}, {{tq|"you're having trouble understanding"}} and {{tq|"Pathetic"}} is far from a collegial approach. ] (]) 19:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC) | ||
:::You still can't see that you were wrong in your edit. That's the worrying part. Carry on with whatever the fuck it is you do. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 19:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
==Some points== | ==Some points== |
Revision as of 19:17, 8 April 2016
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Revert
Lugnuts: Could you explain the reasoning behind your revert? Consider that per AWB rules of use#4, consensus needs to be beuilt when the user is in doubt or "other editors object to edits on the basis of this rule."
So, why did you object that?Mhhossein (talk) 14:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Read the rules of use - "Do not make insignificant or inconsequential edits. An edit that has no noticeable effect on the rendered page is generally considered an insignificant edit." It's pretty clear. Thanks. Lugnuts 16:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Lugnuts: So what? did it need a revert? Mhhossein (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- So what? Someone from Iran who isn't tolerant to others. That must be a first. Read the rules of AWB, before you find yourself at ANI. It's not rocket science. Thanks. Lugnuts 19:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Hey, it's not a matter of tolerance. Your revert was very odd! I made a minor edit. Was it so necessary to be reverted? Your revert was insignificant, too. Do your best about ANI Lugnuts! Btw, I'm not that bad at rocket science. --Mhhossein (talk) 03:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- So what? Someone from Iran who isn't tolerant to others. That must be a first. Read the rules of AWB, before you find yourself at ANI. It's not rocket science. Thanks. Lugnuts 19:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Another AWB do-gooder who thinks everyone else is wrong when they don't know how to use AWB. I'll copy & paste rule 1 for you, as you're having trouble understanding: "You are responsible for every edit made. Do not sacrifice quality for speed and make sure you understand the changes." You then ignored other rules and blame the person reverting your mistakes. Pathetic. Lugnuts 07:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- How did you jump into conclusion that I think "everyone else is wrong"! I'm not blaming anyone, you failed to say was it really necessary to revert a minor edit? was the quality of the article reduced or tarnished after my edit? By the way, the way you interact with other editors is not really constructive. Saying things such as
"who thinks everyone else is wrong"
,"you're having trouble understanding"
and"Pathetic"
is far from a collegial approach. Mhhossein (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)- You still can't see that you were wrong in your edit. That's the worrying part. Carry on with whatever the fuck it is you do. Lugnuts 19:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- How did you jump into conclusion that I think "everyone else is wrong"! I'm not blaming anyone, you failed to say was it really necessary to revert a minor edit? was the quality of the article reduced or tarnished after my edit? By the way, the way you interact with other editors is not really constructive. Saying things such as
Some points
Lugnuts: Instead of jumping into accusations and assuming bad faith, I suggest you to consider assuming good faith of other editors. Removing the external link out of that article was simply because per WP:ELNO, sites already linked through Misplaced Pages sourcing tools should normally be avoided as external links, although the guideline does not restrict linking to them (they should normally be avoided). I think, your edit summary, "rv hounding/stalking by WP:POINTY editor", shows the depth of your bad faith. What point were I to illustrate do you think? Mhhossein (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- You still here? It was clear you were/are stalking my edits after you got caught out abusing AWB. This is done now, unless you want to carry on crying about it. Lugnuts 19:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Biography articles of living people
- All unassessed articles
- Stub-Class cricket articles
- Low-importance cricket articles
- Stub-Class cricket articles of Low-importance
- WikiProject Cricket articles
- Stub-Class Pakistan articles
- Low-importance Pakistan articles
- WikiProject Pakistan articles
- Stub-Class biography articles
- Stub-Class biography (sports and games) articles
- Unknown-importance biography (sports and games) articles
- Sports and games work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles