| Revision as of 15:59, 13 February 2008 editChelsea Tory (talk | contribs)404 edits →Please discuss!: reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:01, 13 February 2008 edit undoChelsea Tory (talk | contribs)404 edits →Please discuss!: replyNext edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| * rewords a sentence for clarity and explains the background of the SA Conservative Party. | * rewords a sentence for clarity and explains the background of the SA Conservative Party. | ||
| ::No. Youa re trying to make a point here. If people want to know about the ] they can look at its Wiki page. ] (]) 16:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * 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. | * 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. | ||
Revision as of 16:01, 13 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.
- No. You have changed that to an overtly political statement. The WGI supported European government, not only there but in other parts of Africa also. Apartheid was a government policy, not a government. Chelsea Tory (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- this edit rewords a sentence for clarity and explains the background of the SA Conservative Party.
- No. Youa re trying to make a point here. If people want to know about the Conservative Party of South Africa they can look at its Wiki page. Chelsea Tory (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- 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?