| Revision as of 03:42, 18 December 2014 editTownlake (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers3,827 edits →"decline removal of this discussion": add← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:03, 18 December 2014 edit undoDavid Levy (talk | contribs)Administrators45,228 edits →"decline removal of this discussion": replyNext edit → | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| :I reverted you on the page where your strange move merited reversion. The resulting mess was yours to clean up. ] (]) 03:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC) | :I reverted you on the page where your strange move merited reversion. The resulting mess was yours to clean up. ] (]) 03:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :^This was pricklier than I intended to be, and I'm sorry for that. To expand a little, when I reverted your move, I was in the middle of something else and didn't have enough time to travel to multiple pages making changes. I didn't feel bad about that because, well, see above. I did owe you that explanation, though, and I regret not posting it the first time. ] (]) 03:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC) | :^This was pricklier than I intended to be, and I'm sorry for that. To expand a little, when I reverted your move, I was in the middle of something else and didn't have enough time to travel to multiple pages making changes. I didn't feel bad about that because, well, see above. I did owe you that explanation, though, and I regret not posting it the first time. ] (]) 03:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC) | ||
| ::I'm not here to complain. I was concerned that you may have viewed the action as an attempt to silence you or otherwise impede the discussion's progress, so I wanted to make it clear that my intent was to combine two threads on the same topic and point ]'s visitors to the one at which a great deal already had been written (thereby getting everyone on the same page – literally and figuratively – and avoiding parallel conversations by groups of editors duplicating each other's effort and missing relevant input without realizing). | |||
| ::I don't know why you regard this as "strange" (as it's a common practice, explicitly recommended in our ] and routinely performed via the aid of templates created for this purpose), but had I anticipated your objection, I wouldn't have proceeded. | |||
| ::I mentioned the need for additional reversion for the benefit of all involved. (If a pasted discussion remains in place in the second location, editors might post replies that go unseen in the first.) —] 10:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 10:03, 18 December 2014
Usually I'm doing other things and I ignore this talk page. If you need to talk to me about an edit, talk to me at the place where I made the edit. If you seek general assistance with Misplaced Pages, please look elsewhere.
edits to this talk page will usually be promptly deleted
"decline removal of this discussion"
I consolidated the two sections in the hope of preventing fragmentation and making all of the relevant messages equally visible/accessible, not to "remove" or otherwise squelch your input. I'm sorry that you viewed this as unhelpful. If you perform such a reversion in the future, please do so on both pages (to eliminate the duplication). Thank you. —David Levy 22:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- I reverted you on the page where your strange move merited reversion. The resulting mess was yours to clean up. Townlake (talk) 03:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- ^This was pricklier than I intended to be, and I'm sorry for that. To expand a little, when I reverted your move, I was in the middle of something else and didn't have enough time to travel to multiple pages making changes. I didn't feel bad about that because, well, see above. I did owe you that explanation, though, and I regret not posting it the first time. Townlake (talk) 03:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not here to complain. I was concerned that you may have viewed the action as an attempt to silence you or otherwise impede the discussion's progress, so I wanted to make it clear that my intent was to combine two threads on the same topic and point Talk:Main Page's visitors to the one at which a great deal already had been written (thereby getting everyone on the same page – literally and figuratively – and avoiding parallel conversations by groups of editors duplicating each other's effort and missing relevant input without realizing).
- I don't know why you regard this as "strange" (as it's a common practice, explicitly recommended in our talk page guidelines and routinely performed via the aid of templates created for this purpose), but had I anticipated your objection, I wouldn't have proceeded.
- I mentioned the need for additional reversion for the benefit of all involved. (If a pasted discussion remains in place in the second location, editors might post replies that go unseen in the first.) —David Levy 10:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)