| Revision as of 05:17, 6 October 2011 editRyan22222 (talk | contribs)34 edits Status update← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:09, 6 October 2011 edit undoChire (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,803 edits SorryNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| == Not editing Misplaced Pages anymore == | == Not editing Misplaced Pages anymore == | ||
| == Sorry to see you leave == | |||
| A pity that you overreact like this. All I've tried was to ask you to not blank the entire section. Someone put in a lot of effort into it. How would you feel and react if someone deleted your whole article with a single-click? I've tried my best to encourage you to edit the section, and even drop 90% of it; just don't do a single-click reversal of someone elses work, that is quite disrespectful to this author, even when he was e.g. just a student. So I hope that at some point you will come back, and instead of just pressing "undo" shorten the relevant section, propose to split it into a separate article, find an article where it does fit in better, and expand the other sections to restore balance in the article. Again, I'm all with you that this work is needed, I just disagree that deleting the whole section is the right way to improve the article. Thank you for your attention. --] (]) 07:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 07:09, 6 October 2011
Not editing Misplaced Pages anymore
Sorry to see you leave
A pity that you overreact like this. All I've tried was to ask you to not blank the entire section. Someone put in a lot of effort into it. How would you feel and react if someone deleted your whole article with a single-click? I've tried my best to encourage you to edit the section, and even drop 90% of it; just don't do a single-click reversal of someone elses work, that is quite disrespectful to this author, even when he was e.g. just a student. So I hope that at some point you will come back, and instead of just pressing "undo" shorten the relevant section, propose to split it into a separate article, find an article where it does fit in better, and expand the other sections to restore balance in the article. Again, I'm all with you that this work is needed, I just disagree that deleting the whole section is the right way to improve the article. Thank you for your attention. --Chire (talk) 07:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)