| Revision as of 17:09, 5 January 2008 editScolaire (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers27,739 edits →Statement by Scolaire: moved to project page← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:41, 5 January 2008 edit undoR. fiend (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers24,206 edits →Question for R. fiendNext edit → | ||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| I wondered if you had a reply to my suggestion ? The thread was closed before you had a chance to reply, perhaps? Apologies if you already replied and I missed it, but I thought my suggestion made sense. --] (]) 06:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC) | I wondered if you had a reply to my suggestion ? The thread was closed before you had a chance to reply, perhaps? Apologies if you already replied and I missed it, but I thought my suggestion made sense. --] (]) 06:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :Certainly one of the more sensible things I've seen recently. I wasn't aware that it required a response. But I am in general agreement. However, I am not going to apologize for fixing a typo. I am learning from this experience, I don't mind saying. -] (]) 19:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | == ] == | ||
Revision as of 19:41, 5 January 2008
Question for R. fiend
I wondered if you had a reply to my suggestion here? The thread was closed before you had a chance to reply, perhaps? Apologies if you already replied and I missed it, but I thought my suggestion made sense. --John (talk) 06:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Certainly one of the more sensible things I've seen recently. I wasn't aware that it required a response. But I am in general agreement. However, I am not going to apologize for fixing a typo. I am learning from this experience, I don't mind saying. -R. fiend (talk) 19:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Easter Rising
Alison, on the Easter Rising article, there were two occasions were the page was protected, and on both occasions the page block was breached. The first occasion was here, protected by Luna, the protection was then breached here, with this comment on the talk page. Having pointed that they were told not to edit the page I got this response. There was a storm of protest on the talk page, if you notice there were two changes made. There was no agreement at all on the first of them, and it materially changed the whole context of the statement. This is outlined here and here in a rather long thread. The thing is, they knew what they were doing. They knew there was no agreement, and made me out to be a liar. I explained this and Fozzie checked it out, and agreed I was right. So while Jj137 page protected the article again the somewhat trivial edits take on a whole new aspect? So you have two breaches of page protection, despite the problems created. I just seems on the RfC, that the two have become mixed up? Thanks again, and I left a post here for you as well.--Domer48 (talk) 11:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)