User talk:2603:8001:2E07:2D00:696A:FAF7:4D15:52F

May 2023
Hello, I'm FatalFit. I noticed that in this edit to San Francisco 49ers, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Dylan &#124; &#9993; &#124; ✓ 00:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * User:FatalFit, they explained what they were doing in their edit summaries. Please be more careful. Drmies (talk) 00:28, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * An encyclopedia is about recording the past. For that reason, I believe the content should remain in the article. Dylan &#124; &#9993; &#124; ✓ 00:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps so, but should this have been an instance of rollback, a tool that is only meant to be used in cases of obvious vandalism? 47.227.95.73 (talk) 00:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I apologize for any errors on my part, and I will make sure to use the undo tool in the future. I did use the rollback feature with an explanation in the summary. However, I still believe that the removed content should remain in the article. Dylan &#124; &#9993; &#124; ✓ 00:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @FatalFit, I second Drmies' comment here. Please only use rollback on edits that are obviously vandalism. If you disagree with an edit, but it's not vandalism, you can use undo. Generally, you shouldn't revert the deletion of content unless there's no edit summary (which wasn't the case here). Please see the "Reversion or removal of unencyclopedic material" section on WP:VANDNOT. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 00:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, please see my reply above and I will make sure to do so in the future. Dylan &#124; &#9993; &#124; ✓ 00:40, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * , sorry, but you said "you removed content without adequately explaining why", and that was simply untrue. I don't need you to respond further if you don't want to, I don't need you to grovel, but you need to know that that reason for reverting was totally incorrect. If you disagree with an edit, say it, but you have to say it clearly. Drmies (talk) 01:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Drmies, the edit summary that you see in the page history was automatically placed with SWViewer. <-- link to config.json of the summaries that are generated. Thanks, Dylan &#124; &#9993; &#124; ✓ 01:10, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * My concern was not with the lack of explanation itself, but rather with the decision to remove what I believed to be valuable content for the article. I have already explained that I will use undo in the future and be more attentive. Dylan &#124; &#9993; &#124; ✓ 01:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have never used that; I think I use Twinkle, but I am still responsible for the edit summaries made by the software I use, and I have no doubt that you have the option to change that edit summary. Yes, undo makes that very easy. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 01:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have never used that; I think I use Twinkle, but I am still responsible for the edit summaries made by the software I use, and I have no doubt that you have the option to change that edit summary. Yes, undo makes that very easy. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 01:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)