This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Chelsea Tory (talk | contribs) at 16:10, 13 February 2008 (→Please discuss!: typos). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 16:10, 13 February 2008 by Chelsea Tory (talk | contribs) (→Please discuss!: typos)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)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. You are 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.
- (1) You offer no accessible source for sixty members of the State President's Council.
- (2) You may not think it important to clearly state that this fellow was a terrorist leader whose gangs were busy murdering inocent people but it is relevent to the WGI and this article. It is all in context. You are attempting to partly sanitise him. Chelsea Tory (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- this diff removes a particularly irrelevant and unexplained part of an image caption.
- There is a limit to how much one can say in a caption, I suppose. But it is surely clear that in the photo these boats are all carrying flags and that is the explanation. Otherwise why the flotilla? It has to have some meaning. The flags represent provinces, cities and towns etc., which were given to the communists. Chelsea Tory (talk) 16:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- this edit asks for a source for a summary of a speech.
- The Western Goals Institute Newsletter, Spring 1990 edition. Also a mention in a couple of newspapers but I can't find them now. Griffith was a complex character.Chelsea Tory (talk) 16:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
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?