User talk:Amaury/2012/June
< User talk:Amaury | 2012
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
In this edit you labeled my removal of inappropriate material as vandalism. However, let it be known that the material you re-added is unencyclopedic (for example, the quotes section) and unstylistic (for example, the external link in the prose that directed a user to an unverified document of largely irrelevant information). Please be more careful next time. 99.144.114.54 (talk) 02:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- My apologies. That should have been a neutral revert with a removal of content warning, not a vandalism warning. In the future, though, I would use edit summaries to make it clear what you are doing so someone coming along doesn't mistake it as nonconstructive. Cheers! - Amaury (talk) 02:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- In fact, it should not have been reverted at all. No warning should have been given in accordance with the assume good faith principle. Instead, you should have checked the entirety of my edit to evaluate the possible reasons it was made, and easily determined that it improved the article by increasing conformance to Wikipedia's style and content guidelines. A small personal note on the benefits of using edit summaries - not a warning - should have been given, but no revert should have occurred. It is your job as patroller to evaluate similar edits, as failure to include an edit summary never justifies a revert (that's why edit summaries are not required for every single edit). Next time, you need to look closely at everything that was removed and ask yourself whether it should be re-added back in its entirety, in part, or not at all. 99.144.114.54 (talk) 03:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- In any case, thank you for striking the warning and I certainly accept your apology. 99.144.114.54 (talk) 03:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)