 | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
(Note: The following conversation is copied from the user talk pages of the two editors involved, one of which was me. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm puzzling over this revert of an edit I did. Per WP:REVERT, reverts aren't supposed to be used for good faith edits, which mine certainly was. Further, you provided no explanation of why you were reverting.
The point of my edit was clear: with more than 300 bots per year approved, why would we want a page to list only one? So I continue not to understand your revert. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- You are welcome to add the remaining 299 bots to the chronicle of wikipedia. `' Míkka >t 17:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your offer that I add the other 299 or so bots; unfortunately, I have more important things to do with my time, as I suspect you do, and all of the other editors I know. If you do in fact have plans to add the other bots, I apologize and will certainly give you time to do so; if you have no plans, I'd really like to know why you think it's advantageous to have exactly one bot listed on this page. Do you really think that a bunch of other editors are going to show up and fix the page? Or that somehow the page is improved with just one bot listed, rather than potentially misleading a naive reader into thinking that somehow that bot was particularly special? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- I don't care what and when other editors will add and what a naive reader will think. Just like you, I have other things to do. And among these other things there is no intention to delete correct and verifiable information on a whim. The bot in qestion exists, does a useful thing, and part of the history of wikipedia, which is not paper. The rest is irrelevant and I have no intention to waste more time on this issue. `' Míkka >t 22:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
| This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
(Note: The following conversation is copied from the user talk pages of the two editors involved, one of which was me. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm puzzling over this revert of an edit I did. Per WP:REVERT, reverts aren't supposed to be used for good faith edits, which mine certainly was. Further, you provided no explanation of why you were reverting.
The point of my edit was clear: with more than 300 bots per year approved, why would we want a page to list only one? So I continue not to understand your revert. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- You are welcome to add the remaining 299 bots to the chronicle of wikipedia. `' Míkka >t 17:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your offer that I add the other 299 or so bots; unfortunately, I have more important things to do with my time, as I suspect you do, and all of the other editors I know. If you do in fact have plans to add the other bots, I apologize and will certainly give you time to do so; if you have no plans, I'd really like to know why you think it's advantageous to have exactly one bot listed on this page. Do you really think that a bunch of other editors are going to show up and fix the page? Or that somehow the page is improved with just one bot listed, rather than potentially misleading a naive reader into thinking that somehow that bot was particularly special? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- I don't care what and when other editors will add and what a naive reader will think. Just like you, I have other things to do. And among these other things there is no intention to delete correct and verifiable information on a whim. The bot in qestion exists, does a useful thing, and part of the history of wikipedia, which is not paper. The rest is irrelevant and I have no intention to waste more time on this issue. `' Míkka >t 22:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)