User talk:Wretchskull (alt)

Rollback granted
Hi Wretchskull (alt). After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3AWretchskull_(alt) enabled] rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback: If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Anarchyte ( talk ) 13:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
 * Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback should never be used to edit war.
 * If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
 * Use common sense.

Pending changes reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also: --Blablubbs (talk) 18:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

Please stop reverting without giving a reason (I can see no reason in this case).
Apokrif (talk) 11:46, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Revert one more time and you will be reported at WP:ANI. You have reverted three times, if you revert one more time it will be classified as edit warring. I reverted because the anchor is out of place and shouldn't be there in the first place. When you are reverted, YOU are supposed to bring it to the talk page per WP:BRD. Wretchskull (alt) (talk) 11:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "the anchor is out of place and shouldn't be there in the first place": where do you suggest we put it?
 * "shouldn't be there in the first place": yes it should. It's the only way to be able to make an interwiki link until the topic is addressed in a separate article.
 * "if you revert one more time it will be classified as edit warring": you removed useful data without giving a reason, which looks like vandalism.
 * "You have reverted three times": please don't complain when you initate edit warring.
 * Apokrif (talk) 11:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I saw your edit-warring + agree that the anchor is out of place. If you need to place a link in any other page, then you can either link to the Beaver page itself or to the respective section of this page. – BhagyaMani (talk) 13:44, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The place is normal but the anchor name is unusual. It should be . I must also agree that Wretchskull did not give a reason and that is a problem. You reverted as if Apokrif's edit was vandalism and adding anchors is obviously not vandalism. Invasive Spices (talk) 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * We can discuss this on the Beaver talk page. Sorry if the rationale for the revert wasn't clear, but I certainly did not intend to revert it as if it were vandalism. Wretchskull (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. Continued here Talk:Beaver. Invasive Spices (talk) 14 January 2022 (UTC)