Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 76.106.149.108 (talk) at 13:28, 7 July 2012 (→Catherine). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)

Catherine

Once you stop being rude.Rusted AutoParts 14:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? I am completely perplexed. You think it's rude to mention her scar? I think there are probably hundreds of people who heard something from a source of questionable reliablilty (say, Entertainment Tonight), and would come to us for the accurate story, which--with a source like the Daily Mail--we could provide for them. You are entitled to disagree about whether or not this merits inclusion, but to suggest I'm being rude is preposterous.

Understand this: We do not all think identically here, and we need to recognize that when dealing with others. If you think I'm being rude, explain why, because it's sure as hell not clear to me why you think this. (Note: I do accept that you are being sincere in this accusation; if I was presuming to know everything, I might just conclude that you were being a troll, but I'm choosing to regard this as incomplete communication.) But when you do communicate, please be careful in how you do it. I still have absolutely no idea what word you were intending when you wrote "intricle". I looked it up, it doesn't exist, so I tried to guess what word you may have misspelled, and I just can't figure it out. So the point is, I'm trying to understand you. Now do your part, and please make yourself more clear.

And of course, it follows from this, that perhaps I'm failing to make myself clear. If this is the case, please say so.

Cheers, 76.106.149.108 (talk) 13:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address. (WHOIS  Geolocate  Proxy Checker Current blocks XTools Global contributions) (RIRs: Africa America Asia-Pacific Europe Latin America/Caribbean)