| Revision as of 01:20, 28 November 2005 editCreidieki (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers3,838 edits Carnegie Mellon material← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:21, 28 November 2005 edit undoCreidieki (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers3,838 editsm →[] material: fix paragraph separation on my commentNext edit → | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| Thanks for noticing that removal from ], I wouldn't have noticed it. I've had a lot of trouble finding the general documentation on removing material from articles (the Misplaced Pages documentation is very sad). Of course, a few pieces of documentation got improved during my search, so it wasn't a total loss. The best paragraph I could find was ]. | Thanks for noticing that removal from ], I wouldn't have noticed it. I've had a lot of trouble finding the general documentation on removing material from articles (the Misplaced Pages documentation is very sad). Of course, a few pieces of documentation got improved during my search, so it wasn't a total loss. The best paragraph I could find was ]. | ||
| But anyway, deleting substantive material outright is strongly against practice, particularly since the user didn't even leave an edit summary. A common dispute-resolution strategy would have been for you to have replaced the material, and left a note on the talk page. Your edit summary would have said something like "Replaced material (see Talk)". This strategy allows you to force the other user into a discussion, rather than a revert war. -- ] 01:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | But anyway, deleting substantive material outright is strongly against practice, particularly since the user didn't even leave an edit summary. A common dispute-resolution strategy would have been for you to have replaced the material, and left a note on the talk page. Your edit summary would have said something like "Replaced material (see Talk)". This strategy allows you to force the other user into a discussion, rather than a revert war. -- ] 01:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 01:21, 28 November 2005
Nothing to see here. Move along.
Carnegie Mellon material
Hi,
Thanks for noticing that removal from Carnegie Mellon, I wouldn't have noticed it. I've had a lot of trouble finding the general documentation on removing material from articles (the Misplaced Pages documentation is very sad). Of course, a few pieces of documentation got improved during my search, so it wasn't a total loss. The best paragraph I could find was Misplaced Pages:Avoiding common mistakes.
But anyway, deleting substantive material outright is strongly against practice, particularly since the user didn't even leave an edit summary. A common dispute-resolution strategy would have been for you to have replaced the material, and left a note on the talk page. Your edit summary would have said something like "Replaced material (see Talk)". This strategy allows you to force the other user into a discussion, rather than a revert war. -- Creidieki 01:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)