| Revision as of 19:29, 6 April 2013 editSailsbystars (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers6,835 edits →April 2013: longer explanatory note← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:36, 6 April 2013 edit undoOrangemike (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators126,240 edits →April 2013: misinterpreting the section you quotedNext edit → | ||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| :You're right, when I pressed "Undo" to reverse the close, I forgot that it would also delete the associated talk comment. My apologies. ] (]) 19:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC) | :You're right, when I pressed "Undo" to reverse the close, I forgot that it would also delete the associated talk comment. My apologies. ] (]) 19:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ::Okay, no worries about that then. It happens to the best of us sometimes. However, I am going to close your request because it's not the proper use of the editsemiprotected template. The template is used when an anonymous editor such as yourself wants an edit made to an article that they can't make because anonymous editors have been stopped from editing the article itself. However, you have the capability to edit the article, hence why the template doesn't make sense (it'd be analagous to trying to file your taxes at the DMV. It's just not the proper use of it....). If you want to continue to discuss potential edits on the talk page that isn't a problem. Nor is editing the article IF you have ] to back up your edits. However, I tried to find sources on CWC (not even CWC+rob bell) and was unsuccessful, so I don't think that you're going to get the rest of us to agree with your edits. ] (]) 19:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC) | ::Okay, no worries about that then. It happens to the best of us sometimes. However, I am going to close your request because it's not the proper use of the editsemiprotected template. The template is used when an anonymous editor such as yourself wants an edit made to an article that they can't make because anonymous editors have been stopped from editing the article itself. However, you have the capability to edit the article, hence why the template doesn't make sense (it'd be analagous to trying to file your taxes at the DMV. It's just not the proper use of it....). If you want to continue to discuss potential edits on the talk page that isn't a problem. Nor is editing the article IF you have ] to back up your edits. However, I tried to find sources on CWC (not even CWC+rob bell) and was unsuccessful, so I don't think that you're going to get the rest of us to agree with your edits. ] (]) 19:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC) | ||
| Any editor is welcome at any time to remove content from her or his own talk page, since the very act of removal is an admission that one has ''read'' the content being removed. You are misinterpreting the section you quoted. --] | ] 19:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:36, 6 April 2013
April 2013
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Robert B. Bell, you may be blocked from editing. Even if you disagree with the close, you can't remove others talk page comments and doing so will eventually lead to a block. Sailsbystars (talk) 21:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- You're right, when I pressed "Undo" to reverse the close, I forgot that it would also delete the associated talk comment. My apologies. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 19:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, no worries about that then. It happens to the best of us sometimes. However, I am going to close your request because it's not the proper use of the editsemiprotected template. The template is used when an anonymous editor such as yourself wants an edit made to an article that they can't make because anonymous editors have been stopped from editing the article itself. However, you have the capability to edit the article, hence why the template doesn't make sense (it'd be analagous to trying to file your taxes at the DMV. It's just not the proper use of it....). If you want to continue to discuss potential edits on the talk page that isn't a problem. Nor is editing the article IF you have appropriate sources to back up your edits. However, I tried to find sources on CWC (not even CWC+rob bell) and was unsuccessful, so I don't think that you're going to get the rest of us to agree with your edits. Sailsbystars (talk) 19:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Any editor is welcome at any time to remove content from her or his own talk page, since the very act of removal is an admission that one has read the content being removed. You are misinterpreting the section you quoted. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)