User talk:Boblipton: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
As for the one word you objected to, you could have simply edited the piece to the same effect instead of reverting it. I have seem other people change words that I have chosen carefully -- I used the word 'bawdy' in working on River Song's personality section and was surprised to see it changed to 'vivacuous' by someone else. Until I puzzle out why the other person prefers that word, I won't change it bacl. Editing is about getting the details right in the context of the overall work. A reversion is an act of unthinking revulsion. I find its free use here rather puzzling. [[User:Boblipton|Boblipton]] 19:02, September 26, 2011 (UTC) | As for the one word you objected to, you could have simply edited the piece to the same effect instead of reverting it. I have seem other people change words that I have chosen carefully -- I used the word 'bawdy' in working on River Song's personality section and was surprised to see it changed to 'vivacuous' by someone else. Until I puzzle out why the other person prefers that word, I won't change it bacl. Editing is about getting the details right in the context of the overall work. A reversion is an act of unthinking revulsion. I find its free use here rather puzzling. [[User:Boblipton|Boblipton]] 19:02, September 26, 2011 (UTC) | ||
:First up, please reply on my talk page in future. Secondly, go your page history, click on the date of the last working version, click edit, copy and then paste it above the header of my message. Thirdly, reverting an edit is not "unthinking revulsion" by any standard. As my inclusion of a reason clearly proves there was some thought involved in the process. Feel free to edit [[Blackthorne Gasworks|Blackthorne]] again if there is a particular issue you feel strongly about. | |||
:In a '''non-serious tone''', I would ask you not to called reversion "unthinking revulsion" as, even though its a generalised comment, it could be likened to a personal attack. Again, I haven't taken offence; I'm talking about future instances here. Thanks | |||
Revision as of 19:25, 26 September 2011
Sorry if you're looking for earlier words of wisdom here, but when I checked here a few minutes ago, there was a lot of garbage coding visible. Please feel free to add your bons mots and make sure to sign your name.Boblipton 20:57, September 21, 2011 (UTC)
Blackthorne and other matters
Perhaps I should have been more specific. I was in fact referring to your removal of the word "installed". Now, you replaced it with the word "put", which simply isn't correct. Jack specifically refers to the action as installation, rather than just chucking it in there.
On an unrelated not, I noticed that you have chosen to delete the contents of your talk page, rather than archive it. Please note that this is a breach of Tardis:Vandalism policy#Your own talk page. Having looked at the page history, I understand you had some technical issues, but if you could reinstate a working version, that would be great. Thanks--Skittles the hog - talk 18:34, September 26, 2011 (UTC)
I certainly have no objection to a working version but have no clear idea of how to go about it. If you would care to do the honors, I have no objection.
As for the one word you objected to, you could have simply edited the piece to the same effect instead of reverting it. I have seem other people change words that I have chosen carefully -- I used the word 'bawdy' in working on River Song's personality section and was surprised to see it changed to 'vivacuous' by someone else. Until I puzzle out why the other person prefers that word, I won't change it bacl. Editing is about getting the details right in the context of the overall work. A reversion is an act of unthinking revulsion. I find its free use here rather puzzling. Boblipton 19:02, September 26, 2011 (UTC)
- First up, please reply on my talk page in future. Secondly, go your page history, click on the date of the last working version, click edit, copy and then paste it above the header of my message. Thirdly, reverting an edit is not "unthinking revulsion" by any standard. As my inclusion of a reason clearly proves there was some thought involved in the process. Feel free to edit Blackthorne again if there is a particular issue you feel strongly about.
- In a non-serious tone, I would ask you not to called reversion "unthinking revulsion" as, even though its a generalised comment, it could be likened to a personal attack. Again, I haven't taken offence; I'm talking about future instances here. Thanks
