Template talk:Cleanup

Why was my edit reverted? 128.2.206.194 21:34, 7 June 2006 (CDT)
 * It's been so very long since someone has rereverted an edit I've reverted. If you're going to edit a template, write a note explaining why in either the summary or here on the discussion page. Thanks. --Xasxas256 21:43, 7 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Isn't it absolutely clear what my change does? (And if it isn't, are you sure you should be reverting willy nilly?) Template:Test and Template:If-Then are identical in behaviour, but is more standard across several MediaWiki installations. If-Then is something PanSola cooked up for obscure purposes. Unless the policy of this wiki is to assume bad faith, I see no reason to simply revert edits. 128.2.206.194 21:57, 7 June 2006 (CDT)
 * As you're an unknown, anon. editor, changing a much used template w/o any sort of comment in the summary, I don't find it all that shocking that people would ask what you're doing. --Rainith 22:01, 7 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Ask, and I will answer. Reverting is not asking. It is the least polite way to treat anyone's edits, in fact. Unless I am misreading You are valuable, unknown anons have the same clout as anyone else. 128.2.206.194 22:02, 7 June 2006 (CDT)
 * FYI: in the contrib history for the IP is an entry saying it's Stabber not logged in. --- Barek (talk &bull; contribs) - 22:03, 7 June 2006 (CDT)
 * And yet, it got an answer, did it not? --Rainith 22:06, 7 June 2006 (CDT)
 * FYI, 128.2.206.194 is a Tor exit node. Don't make any assumptions about who is using it. I am not User:Stabber. 208.66.194.6 22:10, 7 June 2006 (CDT) oh, and look, the IP changed again. I am 128.2.206.194
 * It's a template ie affects numerous articles, I don't see why it's too much to ask you to explain why you've changed it. Totally unnecessary to start quoting wikipedia policy and no need to punch out an accusation that you know already is untrue (assume bad faith). There's more I could say but I don't see any reason in continuing this further, we'd be arguing over something trivial and the template looks fine. I consider this closed unless you have something new to bring up. --Xasxas256 22:12, 7 June 2006 (CDT)
 * You have yet to justify your initial revert with anything more than "I don't understand it, therefore it shall not stand". That is rubbish. 208.66.194.6 22:15, 7 June 2006 (CDT)
 * My edit summary was "I have no idea what you're trying to do here but no", ok the last two words didn't really make any grammatical sense but the point was still made that further explanation would be nice. I'm at work at the moment so I didn't get a chance to put a note on the discussion page but as I said, the point was made in the edit summary. If you want to quote policy, look at Only revert once. I don't see why you're so annoyed, I have no beef with you, the template looks fine, we've worked out why I did the revert, why the ruckus? --Xasxas256 22:20, 7 June 2006 (CDT)
 * And you're rude and seem to be itching for a fight. I'd suggest you settle down and relax.  Is this worth getting that worked up about?  --Rainith 22:21, 7 June 2006 (CDT)
 * EDIT - the above note was directed at Mr. Tor anon, not at Xasxas256. --Rainith 22:22, 7 June 2006 (CDT)
 * In his defence (I am in a good mood today), Tor is incredibly frustrating to use I used to use it to get around work's content filter it annoyed the heck out me! --Xasxas256 22:25, 7 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Ah, I get it. Rude and itching for a fight. First someone reverts my edit for no good reason, and then when I ask for explanation it is I who is being rude. Yes, thank you, I see the light now. 213.113.27.69 22:26, 7 June 2006 (CDT) Yes, I am the same guy as the above.


 * If only you actually did see the light. It is a widely used template with no reported problems.  You changed it with no reason given in the change summary, and no discussion in the talk page.  When questioned, your justification after the fact is that you're right, and no one has a right to question it.  That is rubbish.  Then, to top it off, you have a hissy fit and revert your own edit back to where it all started.  Grow up.  --- Barek (talk &bull; contribs) - 22:29, 7 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I told you I put the explanation in the edit summary, have a look at the recent changed or the history of Template:Cleanup and you'll see I wrote, "I have no idea what you're trying to do here but no". Even if I'd forgotten to leave a note in the summary we worked it out in about 5 minutes anyway, I still don't see why the you're upset. --Xasxas256 22:31, 7 June 2006 (CDT)

--Rainith 22:33, 7 June 2006 (CDT)
 * * (diff) (hist) . . ! Template:Cleanup; 19:33 . . 128.2.206.194 (Talk | block) (wth? rv!) - minorly rude
 * Isn't it absolutely clear what my change does? (And if it isn't, are you sure you should be reverting willy nilly?) - Rather holier than thou, as it has worked fine before why shouldn't it be reverted if a new edit appeared that it might be someone testing something. We get edits all the time with people testing out their ability to edit (almost) all the pages.
 * You have yet to justify your initial revert with anything more than "I don't understand it, therefore it shall not stand". That is rubbish. - getting rude again.


 * I think the anonymous user is the one in the right. Between You are valuable and Assume good faith there was no basis at all for the revert.  Xasxas didn't understand the change so could not possibly have a reasonable assumption that it was bad faith.  No one else has given a reason to assume so besides "he's anonymous" (YAV, AGF), the template is "widely used with no reported problems" (AGF), and there was "no discussion" (AGF).


 * That said, no, as far as I know isn't used like that "across MediaWiki installations."  On the WikiMedia wikis it's a template dealing with "test" edits saying to use the sandbox for tests.  Clicking around various popular wikis, it mostly doesn't exist or is used like on WikiMedia sites.  --68.142.14.91 23:00, 7 June 2006 (CDT)