| Revision as of 07:10, 6 July 2012 view sourceUrselius (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers24,674 edits →Which/that: new section← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 15:24, 9 July 2012 view source DangerousPanda (talk | contribs)38,827 editsm Protected User talk:Roux: RTV being invoked - editor wishes no further contact ( (indefinite) (indefinite)) | ||
| (67 intermediate revisions by 21 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{retired}} | |||
| {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis|archiveprefix=User talk:Roux/Archives/|format=Y/F|age=120|index=no}} | |||
| Password has been scrambled. → ] ]<small> 02:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)</small> | |||
| {{User talk:Roux/t}} | |||
| == 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'. ] (]) 07:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 15:24, 9 July 2012
Retired This user is no longer active on Misplaced Pages.Password has been scrambled. → ROUX ₪ 02:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)