| Revision as of 18:09, 12 February 2008 editRelata refero (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers8,630 edits →Please discuss!: 34← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:10, 12 February 2008 edit undoRelata refero (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers8,630 edits →Please discuss!: 5Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| Line 13: | Line 12: | ||
| * removes a particularly irrelevant and unexplained part of an image caption. | * removes a particularly irrelevant and unexplained part of an image caption. | ||
| * asks for a source for a summary of a speech. | |||
| What here requires vaguely insulting edit comments and a series of wholesale reverts? Please, let's be civilised about this, and lets have a bit of an organised discussion, shall we? | |||
| ] (]) 18:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:10, 12 February 2008
Please discuss!
Can the editor who has recently made several wholesale reverts please explain here which particular points he objects to? I made a series of incremental changes, each with an informative edit summary. I shall list them here so as to save him any trouble. Relata refero (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- this diff avoids obfuscation about the support for the pre-1991 dispensation in South Africa.
- this edit rewords a sentence for clarity and explains the background of the SA Conservative Party.
- this diff reduces a lengthy clause, focuses on an individual's primary role (and the reason for his death, which is relevant in this context) and provides some extremely neutral information about another individual's affiliation.
- this diff removes a particularly irrelevant and unexplained part of an image caption.
- this edit asks for a source for a summary of a speech.
What here requires vaguely insulting edit comments and a series of wholesale reverts? Please, let's be civilised about this, and lets have a bit of an organised discussion, shall we?