![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | → | Archive 35 |
Regarding your undo of my contribution:
I didn't find it "unreadable";
So rather than just undo this contribution as you just did (and most especially when you say it needs improvement), then what else do you suggest?
--and I almost was about to send just that message there, and may others may have; BUT even though I was peeved that you pretty matter-of-factly simply undid everything I added, I still did a little more research to find out what you had been doing to this page (As was it bad? Or was it good?) And...
I now see you created this section:
Yes, thank you very for writing it. And it IS a quite valuable contribution, with some very good research. So yes I guess you don't work for Gmail.
But before you just entirely undo someone's changes (and, yes, if you were the original creator), take a careful look at the changes and talk with them first. Sound reasonable? While initially you may not like the change, first ask "But what appears to be his/her intent?" And if positive (as this clearly was if you looked at it carefully), then talk with the person first.
Indeed was my edit really so horrible that you'd just have undo it all?! I think not.
Indeed if you look carefully, I didn't remove ONE THING of any of the very good stuff you found; indeed I only added and strengthened it. Yes, there were changes thru it all, and it may have startled you to see all your text rewritten a little bit, but first, before reacting and undoing, think of the person's intent. And read it carefully ---many if not all of your points & sentences are actually strengthened.
Moreover, I also agree with your initial version (before User:Ahunt got to it) where you put the citation footnotes right next to where they belong. And I disagree with User:Ahunt [ who undid that]:
Under what Wikipedia writing rule can User:Ahunt back up such? Indeed hard to believe such a rule exists (else that it would make sense) as what good are citations and footnotes if you don't put them adjacent what they belong to.
In fact, after carefully reviewing them, I disagree with ALL 4 edits of your entry by User:Ahunt, all lessening it for unneeded and incorrect logic. Quoted with my comments appended:
What are your thoughts? And I kindly ask you to undo your undo of my work, and instead suggest changes where really needed. MBParker ( talk) 09:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't mean any disrespect, but I cannot comprehend what you are trying to say here. Your writing style — tons of bold interspersed with the talk text, or lots of "small font" interspersed on the article— is unpleasing to the eye. The "on behalf of" section is fine as it is. It simply states, without POV, that this is a problem. I don't know why you feel the need to change, and I don't understand what you're trying to change. Further, I see that you have fewer than 50 edits on Wikipedia. You are just going to have to trust other editors when they tell you something is unreadable or when they tell you it is better another way. See WP:EGO. Timneu22 ( talk) 12:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | → | Archive 35 |
Regarding your undo of my contribution:
I didn't find it "unreadable";
So rather than just undo this contribution as you just did (and most especially when you say it needs improvement), then what else do you suggest?
--and I almost was about to send just that message there, and may others may have; BUT even though I was peeved that you pretty matter-of-factly simply undid everything I added, I still did a little more research to find out what you had been doing to this page (As was it bad? Or was it good?) And...
I now see you created this section:
Yes, thank you very for writing it. And it IS a quite valuable contribution, with some very good research. So yes I guess you don't work for Gmail.
But before you just entirely undo someone's changes (and, yes, if you were the original creator), take a careful look at the changes and talk with them first. Sound reasonable? While initially you may not like the change, first ask "But what appears to be his/her intent?" And if positive (as this clearly was if you looked at it carefully), then talk with the person first.
Indeed was my edit really so horrible that you'd just have undo it all?! I think not.
Indeed if you look carefully, I didn't remove ONE THING of any of the very good stuff you found; indeed I only added and strengthened it. Yes, there were changes thru it all, and it may have startled you to see all your text rewritten a little bit, but first, before reacting and undoing, think of the person's intent. And read it carefully ---many if not all of your points & sentences are actually strengthened.
Moreover, I also agree with your initial version (before User:Ahunt got to it) where you put the citation footnotes right next to where they belong. And I disagree with User:Ahunt [ who undid that]:
Under what Wikipedia writing rule can User:Ahunt back up such? Indeed hard to believe such a rule exists (else that it would make sense) as what good are citations and footnotes if you don't put them adjacent what they belong to.
In fact, after carefully reviewing them, I disagree with ALL 4 edits of your entry by User:Ahunt, all lessening it for unneeded and incorrect logic. Quoted with my comments appended:
What are your thoughts? And I kindly ask you to undo your undo of my work, and instead suggest changes where really needed. MBParker ( talk) 09:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't mean any disrespect, but I cannot comprehend what you are trying to say here. Your writing style — tons of bold interspersed with the talk text, or lots of "small font" interspersed on the article— is unpleasing to the eye. The "on behalf of" section is fine as it is. It simply states, without POV, that this is a problem. I don't know why you feel the need to change, and I don't understand what you're trying to change. Further, I see that you have fewer than 50 edits on Wikipedia. You are just going to have to trust other editors when they tell you something is unreadable or when they tell you it is better another way. See WP:EGO. Timneu22 ( talk) 12:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)