| Revision as of 15:40, 1 July 2012 edit76.106.149.108 (talk) →Inappropriate edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:26, 6 July 2012 edit undoRusted AutoParts (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers137,197 edits →Catherine: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| ::::Hah! i didn't realise that was you, as I usually edit the edit not the editor. Let's call it a draw, shall we? ] (]) 11:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC) | ::::Hah! i didn't realise that was you, as I usually edit the edit not the editor. Let's call it a draw, shall we? ] (]) 11:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC) | ||
| :::::''Naturalment''. I certainly never claimed to be a saint. (why do you think I didn't go off tattling on you to a sysop?) ] (]) 15:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC) | :::::''Naturalment''. I certainly never claimed to be a saint. (why do you think I didn't go off tattling on you to a sysop?) ] (]) 15:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC) | ||
| == Catherine == | |||
| Once you stop being rude.<font face="Rockwell" size="3" style="color:#000000;color:red"><i>Rusted AutoParts</i></font> 14:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 14:26, 6 July 2012
Inappropriate edit summary
Interesting point. Now read the summary very carefully and tell me who I was insulting, and why. Britmax (talk) 23:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- I don't recall saying that you were insulting anyone. But your comment (as I saw it) made presumptions on the sexual orientation of the editor(s) being reverted. I just don't see that as appropriate.76.106.149.108 (talk) 01:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- That's what I thought, but I asked to check that you wern't just knee jerking, and you're not. Yes, the summary is a little arch but I was hoping to wind up the kind of person who adds such material to articles at closing time on Saturday night, a thing that works because some of them are wound up by that sort of thing. And he gay ones will be thinking "well, why aren't I at a foam party?" (or whatever).
- Just out of interest, I'm not a great fan of my pre-written edit summaries either, or rather the need for them. Their saving grace is that I can land on sniper vandalism and random number changes very quickly. Few of them are questioned or reverted, and in some cases where they are the revert comes with the edit summary I was looking for.
- Thanks for the feedback though. I may think twice before changing the script next time. Britmax (talk) 07:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hah! i didn't realise that this was you, as I usually edit the edit not the editor. Let's call it a draw, shall we? Britmax (talk) 11:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- Naturalment. I certainly never claimed to be a saint. (why do you think I didn't go off tattling on you to a sysop?) 76.106.149.108 (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hah! i didn't realise that this was you, as I usually edit the edit not the editor. Let's call it a draw, shall we? Britmax (talk) 11:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Catherine
Once you stop being rude.Rusted AutoParts 14:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)