User talk:IRP/Template talk:Grading scheme

Template talk:Grading scheme
No, the templates which I am requesting an edit for are all protected. Their talk pages all redirect to Template talk:Grading scheme (don't ask me why, they just do). PC78 (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I explained my revert here. I don't believe I am at risk of being blocked (what policy are you citing here?), and blanking my comment – even if you though I had made a mistake – was inappropriate. Reverting my revert as you did was rather juvenile. PC78 (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * See this post . -- IRP ☎ 18:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

As already stated, I did explain my revert. WP:REVEXP is not a policy, nor even a guideline. PC78 (talk) 18:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. OK, everybody just calm down, please? There's really basically no problem here, I think.  It's just a matter of a talk page comment.  Have a cup of tea.  IRP, please let PC78 edit their own talk page comment.  If you think it needs to be deleted or changed, just explain nicely to PC78 the reasons, and let PC78 do it; and if PC78 doesn't want to, it's probably best to just leave it.  PC78, you probably noticed but just in case you didn't, IRP has pointed out that the page is not fully protected.  I think it would be helpful for you to either remove the editprotected template, or explain nicely to IRP why you prefer to keep it there.  I don't think anybody did anything terribly wrong here.  In future though, IRP, it's almost always best to let other users edit their own comments: see WP:Talk page guidelines.  If you were very concerned that the editprotected template shouldn't be there, you could have just deleted the template and left the rest of the comment there, or replaced  with editprotected which nullifies the template.  IRP, you're right that users are encouraged to provide meaningful edit summaries, especially when reverting.  However, when users don't follow policies, guidelines or suggestions, it's best not to over-react.  People are encouraged to be bold. It's not necessary to revert an edit just because someone didn't provide an edit summary.  The best approach would be to just ignore it, or else to politely ask the user why they reverted. Just don't worry, everything's fine. I hope this helps.  ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 18:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't it a breach of the Wikipedia policies and guidelines to revert legitimate edits without explanation? Doing so is treating an edit as vandalism. -- IRP ☎ 19:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's one of those borderline cases. WP:REVEXP doesn't have a guideline template at the top of the page.  It isn't a policy or guideline; it's just a help page.  It's still a good idea to follow the instructions there.  Basically, we're supposed to follow basic principles: trying to get along with people and stuff like that.  If you know about a rule, it's usually best to follow it unless you have a good reason not to and are confident that it won't bother people if you don't.  Basic principles are shown by policies like WP:IAR, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:CIVILITY.  A lot of it is just getting along with people.  I guess you were offended when you felt that your edit was being treated as vandalism.  But look at it from the other person's point of view:  how do you think they felt when their comment was deleted?  Anyway, we don't punish people for just not putting an edit summary in one edit.  We don't punish at all, actually: see WP:Blocking policy.  Even if people do violate policies or guidelines, it's usually best to either ignore it, or talk to them nicely about it. Often they'll have a good reason for violating; or they might not have known the policy or guideline. Or they might have thought nobody would mind, and you can explain to them gently why you do mind. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 19:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)