| Revision as of 01:11, 27 May 2013 editNikkimaria (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users232,518 edits →Infobox: add← Previous edit |
Revision as of 03:29, 27 May 2013 edit undoMontanabw (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers105,490 edits I'm just the cleanup crew here. Now step aside show respect for expertise.Next edit → |
| Line 7: |
Line 7: |
|
|
|
|
|
Several editors have reverted my attempts to format the infobox in accordance with recommendations for long lists. I attempted to compromise by substituting an alternative template for one that one editor objected to, although I disagree with her objections to the initial template. Another editor has also restored obvious errors to the article, including a claim that a recording was made in the "11960s", with no valid rationale for doing so. I invite that editor to present her reasoning for that rather strange action. ] (]) 01:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
Several editors have reverted my attempts to format the infobox in accordance with recommendations for long lists. I attempted to compromise by substituting an alternative template for one that one editor objected to, although I disagree with her objections to the initial template. Another editor has also restored obvious errors to the article, including a claim that a recording was made in the "11960s", with no valid rationale for doing so. I invite that editor to present her reasoning for that rather strange action. ] (]) 01:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Knock off this obsession with stalking articles Gerda is improving and making this pissant reversions of helpful information. You are showing immense disrespect to an editor who is of good faith and an expert in the field with your constant ] behavior. The lists you are collapsing are not, by any stretch of the imagination, "long." This isn't infobox mineral or infobox Presidents. The information you keep wasting bandwidth to collapse is in small text and takes up less than a half-inch of space on my laptop screeen. Because you use complex syntax that is difficult for me to remove manually and because you also game the system by inserting intermediate edits to make reversion difficult (and to duck a technical 3RR violation) it is simpler to revert your edit-warring. Sometimes I have gone to the extra work to fix the typos and other small tweaks, but the rest of the time it's enough work just fixing your incessant attempts to harass an expert who is trying to create article that educate the little children like you, who is acting like a brat in a bubble and holding her breath until she turns blue because she can't get her own way. Now would you please GROW UP. Are you 10 years old or something? Sometimes the real grownups actually do know best, and I for one am willing to listen and grant considerable deference to an expert in the field. Unlike other editors who appear to think that because they stalk the internet and revert improvements, their attempt becomes the "stable" one ]<sup>]</sup> 03:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC) |
Several editors have reverted my attempts to format the infobox in accordance with recommendations for long lists. I attempted to compromise by substituting an alternative template for one that one editor objected to, although I disagree with her objections to the initial template. Another editor has also restored obvious errors to the article, including a claim that a recording was made in the "11960s", with no valid rationale for doing so. I invite that editor to present her reasoning for that rather strange action. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
