Misplaced Pages

User talk:Roux: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 07:10, 6 July 2012 view sourceUrselius (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers24,673 edits →Which/that: new section← Previous edit Revision as of 21:47, 7 July 2012 view source Keystoneridin (talk | contribs)Rollbackers2,261 edits →Okay, I get it.: new sectionNext edit →
Line 6: Line 6:


I am pleased that you reverted from 'that' to 'which' on the Battle of Waterloo article. The spurious convention, often slavishly applied in the USA, insisting that 'which' is only used in conjuction with a comma is stifling good expression in English. I particularly despise journal editors/proofreaders who change my use of 'which' to 'that'. ] (]) 07:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC) I am pleased that you reverted from 'that' to 'which' on the Battle of Waterloo article. The spurious convention, often slavishly applied in the USA, insisting that 'which' is only used in conjuction with a comma is stifling good expression in English. I particularly despise journal editors/proofreaders who change my use of 'which' to 'that'. ] (]) 07:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

== Okay, I get it. ==

Enough is enough. I realize you are angry about the article, fine. But posting to intervene on other communications which do not concern you IS harassment. Please do stop. This is getting ridiculous.<span style="border: 1px solid #CC3333">]]</span> 21:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:47, 7 July 2012


roux

main • talk • dashboard • sandbox • edits • email • refresh
archiving performed by cluebot every five days // online


talk archives
2008 / apr-aug / a / s / o / n / d
2009 / j / f / m / a / m / j / j / a / s / o / n / d
2010 / j / f / m / a / m / j / j / a / s / o / n / d
2011 / j / f / m / a / m / j / j / a / s / o / n / d
2012 / j / f / m / a / m / j / j / a / s / o / n / d

Which/that

I am pleased that you reverted from 'that' to 'which' on the Battle of Waterloo article. The spurious convention, often slavishly applied in the USA, insisting that 'which' is only used in conjuction with a comma is stifling good expression in English. I particularly despise journal editors/proofreaders who change my use of 'which' to 'that'. Urselius (talk) 07:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I get it.

Enough is enough. I realize you are angry about the article, fine. But posting to intervene on other communications which do not concern you IS harassment. Please do stop. This is getting ridiculous.Keystoneridin (speak) 21:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)