User talk:84.71.192.107: Difference between revisions
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
Hey, I need your help to get rid of the awful table on [[The Bill]] page. If you go to the talk page and voice your opinion that the table is awful looking then hopefully we can get it reverted to the list form, thanks.--[[User:NeilEvans|NeilEvans]] 23:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC) |
Hey, I need your help to get rid of the awful table on [[The Bill]] page. If you go to the talk page and voice your opinion that the table is awful looking then hopefully we can get it reverted to the list form, thanks.--[[User:NeilEvans|NeilEvans]] 23:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC) |
||
Thanks for your message User:NeilEvans. I completely agree and have made a contribution to the discussion page, which i hope helps. |
Revision as of 16:12, 7 June 2007
84.71.192.107
How exactly was my editing of The Bill vandalism or in any way unconstructive? I simply did not agree with the new formatting, as I'm sure many regular users will agree, and reverted it back to the origonal edit. My edit did not contain any inappropriate or incorrect information, contained more information than the version I changed, and does not have sufficient grounds for blocking of an IP address.
- First, I thought you were trying to delete content on the page, because the page was previously semi-protected. Now looking over the dispute, you were trying to change the table in the show. Instead of reformatting the table, please go to the talk page first, and ask if the table should be reformatted first, instead of making a list beforehand. I have deleted the vandalism warnings. Let me know if you have anymore questions, and I will respond here. Miranda 22:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Also, you didn't use an edit summary when you deleted the content. Next, time please use this, so people would not get confused over your edits. Thanks. Miranda 23:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
To be honest Miranda, I do not see why I should attempt to discuss the issue of a change when Calcon18 who changed the formatting to the table in the first place didnt do this. I reverted to the origonal formatting without discussion because the formatting was changed without discussion, which I (and as I predicted, several other regular users) think is perfectly reasonable. As for not using an edit summary, if you had taken the time to notice my edit at 21:58 on the 6 June 2007, you would have seen that I did and you actually responded to it if you recall "although this is a content dispute, please talk it over in the talk page...". May I also point out the user who introduced the table formatting in the first place did not use an edit summary so I feel that that along with the complete disregard for discussion made the edits that I reverted completely unjustified. May I also suggest that in the future you look at all the facts before you make accusations of vandalism, thank you.
Hey, I need your help to get rid of the awful table on The Bill page. If you go to the talk page and voice your opinion that the table is awful looking then hopefully we can get it reverted to the list form, thanks.--NeilEvans 23:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your message User:NeilEvans. I completely agree and have made a contribution to the discussion page, which i hope helps.