Content deleted Content added
AussieLegend (talk | contribs) →Protected edit request on 6 December 2015: Don't overstep your authority. |
|||
Line 244:
::::::Consensus isn't necessary to request that a change that effectively broke a template be reverted. Before the change there was no error. After the change there was an error when there shouldn't have been. You have to use a little common sense here. The whole point of adding {{tl|edit fully-protected}} ''is'' to draw attention to an edit request. The particular section that you've quoted from is about the possibility of a request being controversial. It is meant to stop people saying things like "please add a parameter to display an image" and using a template drawing attention to a discussion that really needs to be fully discussed. A request to implement a simple change to remove an error introduced by an editor is hardly controversial.
::::::{{tq|I see little reason why any editor responding in the negative could not do so}} Of course any editor can respond, but the point that you are missing is that you are clearly not in a position to action the request so, while you can comment, you are not in a position to demand that the edit request not be reactivated, which is what you seem to be doing. It's really up to somebody who can action the request to make that demand. --[[User:AussieLegend|'''<span style="color:#008751;">Aussie</span><span style="color:#fcd116;">Legend</span>''']] ([[User talk:AussieLegend#top|<big>✉</big>]]) 13:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::::{{ping|AussieLegend}} as far as I can tell from the comments [[Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#Spurious_.27Check_.7Cepisodelink.3D_value.27_error.3F_in_Template:cite_episode|here]], it's agreed that this will be fixed at the next round of updates. [[User:Peter coxhead|Peter coxhead]] ([[User talk:Peter coxhead|talk]]) 14:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
| |||