| Revision as of 05:22, 26 February 2009 editFastily (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled100,543 edits archive page← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:21, 1 March 2009 edit undo66.92.3.42 (talk)No edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| <!-- Please do NOT edit the section above - post messages below, thanks. Archived last as of 2-25-09. Old messages may be viewed by clicking the Archive box in the upper right corner. | <!-- Please do NOT edit the section above - post messages below, thanks. Archived last as of 2-25-09. Old messages may be viewed by clicking the Archive box in the upper right corner. | ||
| --> | --> | ||
| ==Strange warning== | |||
| You said I made an edit that was unconstructive and did not have an edit summary, despite both edits having them. One was "Obviously, being unable to win much is a fundamental weakness" and referred to me deleting a paragraph that basically said "The Whigs inability to win was a major weakness." It would have been better for me to say "Being unable to win is an effect, not a cause, of being a weak political party" but the point is that you accused me of making edits without using an edit summary even though I did, and the edits improved the article since they removed poor material, despite your claim that they were "unconstructive." | |||
| ] (]) 07:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 07:21, 1 March 2009
-User:Fastily
 | This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
 Archives |
|
Archive 1: Jan 2008 |
Strange warning
You said I made an edit that was unconstructive and did not have an edit summary, despite both edits having them. One was "Obviously, being unable to win much is a fundamental weakness" and referred to me deleting a paragraph that basically said "The Whigs inability to win was a major weakness." It would have been better for me to say "Being unable to win is an effect, not a cause, of being a weak political party" but the point is that you accused me of making edits without using an edit summary even though I did, and the edits improved the article since they removed poor material, despite your claim that they were "unconstructive."