| Revision as of 01:50, 8 January 2010 editAmmodramus (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers29,025 edits →Richard Burr; or, A Little More Care, Please!← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:02, 5 February 2010 edit undoAmmodramus (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers29,025 edits →Richard Burr; or, A Little More Care, Please!Next edit → | ||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
| Oh, and: I apologize if I was a bit short about your inadvertently killing my revised citation. Chasing down citations and replacing dead links is one of those vital but tedious tasks; I feel myself in duty bound to do a certain amount of it, but it's a lot of work, and there's so much of it to be done... Thus I got a bit snappish when I found my work reverted. And if I'd intended to be rude, I would've posted the note on the Burr talk page; I put it on your personal talk page to avoid embarrassing you. | Oh, and: I apologize if I was a bit short about your inadvertently killing my revised citation. Chasing down citations and replacing dead links is one of those vital but tedious tasks; I feel myself in duty bound to do a certain amount of it, but it's a lot of work, and there's so much of it to be done... Thus I got a bit snappish when I found my work reverted. And if I'd intended to be rude, I would've posted the note on the Burr talk page; I put it on your personal talk page to avoid embarrassing you. | ||
| --] (]) 01:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC) | :--] (]) 01:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
| I'm afraid you're having some kind of technical problem with your edits, though I can't say what it might be. In both of your latest additions to ], you've inadvertently deleted a large chunk of earlier material from the page. Here's the for the latest one; here's the for the first. As you can see, in both cases you cut a substantial piece out of my January 10 comment. The accidental deletions weren't identical, but were very similar. The first time it happened, I thought it might have been something like hitting CTL-X instead of CTL-V; but the fact that it's occurred twice in a row suggests that it might be a more systematic error. | |||
| :--] (]) 16:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:02, 5 February 2010
Concerning the speedy deletion of Freezer Queen
Terribly sorry. I think I'm being a little idiotic. From my talk page. Merlion 444 05:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Richard Burr; or, A Little More Care, Please!
In reverting my mutilation of your pet paragraph in the Richard Burr article, I think you edited more than you'd intended.
I'd moved the subsection "Financial system" to a more appropriate location, and given it a more appropriate title. I'd be happy to justify that on the talk page, if you think it was incorrect. However, I suspect that you didn't notice that change at all, since in the process you reverted my repair of a dead link.
You should have noticed it. My edit summary was: "Moved section to more appropriate place; fixed broken link in reference".
Please be a little more careful with your future edits. Thanks.
I finally got my justification for the latest edit written. I'm sorry about the delay: I'm a very picky proofreader, and it usually takes a dozen revisions before I'm satisfied with something I've written. (Of course, I invariably spot a missing period or a "the the" ten seconds after I've hit the "Save Page" button.)
OK, WP policy. Would you say that you've made a serious effort to "write for the 'opponent'"? I suspect that I could guess your position on environmental matters generally, and on Environment America specifically, with a fair degree of accuracy. If you can tell my positions from my WP writings, then I've failed to that extent.
I think you've also fallen short in Misplaced Pages:NPOV#Impartial_tone. I think that you're trying to skew the article by your selection of EA's zero rating, and your inclusion of the description of the measure against which Burr voted.
Finally: where's your justification? I've argued against your edits on the grounds that EA isn't a good source, and I've tried to justify my edits. Your response throughout has been "Show me a rule that says I can't." If it's so important that the EA rating and the particular measure be included, why haven't you tried to provide positive justification for them?
Oh, and: I apologize if I was a bit short about your inadvertently killing my revised citation. Chasing down citations and replacing dead links is one of those vital but tedious tasks; I feel myself in duty bound to do a certain amount of it, but it's a lot of work, and there's so much of it to be done... Thus I got a bit snappish when I found my work reverted. And if I'd intended to be rude, I would've posted the note on the Burr talk page; I put it on your personal talk page to avoid embarrassing you.
I'm afraid you're having some kind of technical problem with your edits, though I can't say what it might be. In both of your latest additions to Talk:Richard Burr, you've inadvertently deleted a large chunk of earlier material from the page. Here's the diff for the latest one; here's the diff for the first. As you can see, in both cases you cut a substantial piece out of my January 10 comment. The accidental deletions weren't identical, but were very similar. The first time it happened, I thought it might have been something like hitting CTL-X instead of CTL-V; but the fact that it's occurred twice in a row suggests that it might be a more systematic error.