| Revision as of 08:22, 3 April 2007 editNagromtpc (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users10,969 edits {{oldafdmulti← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:15, 4 April 2007 edit undoLewisskinner (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,471 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| | votepage = St Paul's tram stop | | votepage = St Paul's tram stop | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| ==Reverts== | |||
| ''Warning to ] - moved from ] as ] reverted in an attempt to make me look bad.'' | |||
| Please be very careful with reverting as you did . If you need help, try looking into ]. A complete revert was not only unnecessary, it could have swayed the discussion by removing important information - this is not acceptable. A partial revert would have been the solution here, keeping in the supporting information and explanation I added. The changes I made came about due to a ]. Please, familiarise yourself with reverting and in the future, maybe you ought to ]. Good day. ]]|] 14:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :On the contrary, you over-writing of pre-existing votes was unacceptable. ] 14:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''Can you read?''' quote: ''"The changes I made came about due to a ]."''. I suggest you go and read what and edit conflict is, and how I could have innocently removed the content. However, you blanked a whole section of text, again, please look . Page blanking may be considered ] (That's why we have ] and ] for unintentional edits) but I felt that simply a polite word was more appropriate here, since it was clearly a case that you didn't know I'd added new content, and just clicked undo. ]<sup>]|]</sup> 14:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:15, 4 April 2007
 | This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
Reverts
Warning to Andy Mabbett - moved from User talk:Pigsonthewing#reverts as Andy Mabbett reverted in an attempt to make me look bad.
Please be very careful with reverting as you did here. If you need help, try looking into Help:Reverting. A complete revert was not only unnecessary, it could have swayed the discussion by removing important information - this is not acceptable. A partial revert would have been the solution here, keeping in the supporting information and explanation I added. The changes I made came about due to a Edit conflict. Please, familiarise yourself with reverting and in the future, maybe you ought to assume better faith. Good day. L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 14:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- On the contrary, you over-writing of pre-existing votes was unacceptable. Andy Mabbett 14:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Can you read? quote: "The changes I made came about due to a Edit conflict.". I suggest you go and read what and edit conflict is, and how I could have innocently removed the content. However, you blanked a whole section of text, again, please look . Page blanking may be considered vandalism (That's why we have Template:Uw-delete1 and Template:Uw-delete2 for unintentional edits) but I felt that simply a polite word was more appropriate here, since it was clearly a case that you didn't know I'd added new content, and just clicked undo. L.J.Skinner 14:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)