| Revision as of 11:36, 14 July 2007 editSadi Carnot (talk | contribs)8,673 edits →your asking me to leave: reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:17, 14 July 2007 edit undoHallenrm (talk | contribs)1,970 edits →Your asking me to leaveNext edit → | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| :Lastly, as to my comment about leaving: if you continue to call me mindless, I will continue to suggest that you leave. If, however, you begin to use civil language in discussions, then I will have no problems. As to reverts, you have reverted me 3 times total (twice at the ] article and once at the ]) in Misplaced Pages: a good rule of thumb is not to revert a seasoned science editor (someone who’s been here for more than a year), but instead use the talk page to discuss why you object to the edit, and then if the editor cannot substantiate just cause, then revert or modify (preferred method). In sum, be nice to other editors and modify or discuss other’s edits rather than reverting them. Thank you: --] 11:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC) | :Lastly, as to my comment about leaving: if you continue to call me mindless, I will continue to suggest that you leave. If, however, you begin to use civil language in discussions, then I will have no problems. As to reverts, you have reverted me 3 times total (twice at the ] article and once at the ]) in Misplaced Pages: a good rule of thumb is not to revert a seasoned science editor (someone who’s been here for more than a year), but instead use the talk page to discuss why you object to the edit, and then if the editor cannot substantiate just cause, then revert or modify (preferred method). In sum, be nice to other editors and modify or discuss other’s edits rather than reverting them. Thank you: --] 11:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :::Thank you for the prompt reply! Let me put the record straight, I never converted the energy article into a disambiguation page, I was just attempting to bring it under the 32KB limit, for which someone had a constant reminder on the talk page. It was just an act like yours to bring prune the chemistry page, by moving chemical energetics subsection section to chemical thermodynamics article. Since the major portion of the article was dealing with the physics related content, I left it as such and moved the Chemistry, biology, geolory and cosmology related stuff to Energy (chemistry, Energy (biology) , Energy (earth sciences) and Energy (cosmology) respectively. My intent was apparently the same as yours wrt Chemistry article. It was later that some one converted that page to Energy (disambiguation) page. Any way as I have already clarified I never called you mindless, what I said was just that your particular act of moving the Chemical energetics subsection from Chemistry to Chemical thermodynamics article was mindless, because you did not care to see that the content of the subsection never really fitted Chemical Thermodynamics. | |||
| Any way let the bygones be bygones and let us be courteous to each other as is the accepted culture of wikipedia. Cheers] 12:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 12:17, 14 July 2007
| I clear my talk page semi-weekly basis; after I respond of course. |
Your asking me to leave
This is regarding your recent message on my talk page, asking me to leave; this is after your concerted effort in conspiring to get me banned. Let me inform you that I am a master of my own and do not take such suggestions from anybody. May I ask you what is your authority on the wikipedia to dole out such suggestions. It is as much uncivil as my terming one of your edits mindless ( Inever called you mindless in general), which it was because you did not apply your mind before carrying out your action which was just out of vengeance.Hallenrm 06:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Get this straight, firstly: I have no issues with you. Second, you be nice to me and I will be nice to you; the same goes for everyone else at Misplaced Pages. Third, please do not make any assumptions about what my intentions are or are not. Fourth, my focus in Misplaced Pages is in science articles in general, but with special interest in the thermodynamics, heat, energy, and chemistry related articles; thus, when you converted one of these articles into a disambiguation page, this obviously attracted my attention. This issue, however, seems to be solved: we now have an article on energy (I am short on time presently, and hence I pulled out of the energy article issue when I saw the problem being solved).
- Lastly, as to my comment about leaving: if you continue to call me mindless, I will continue to suggest that you leave. If, however, you begin to use civil language in discussions, then I will have no problems. As to reverts, you have reverted me 3 times total (twice at the energy article and once at the chemistry) in Misplaced Pages: a good rule of thumb is not to revert a seasoned science editor (someone who’s been here for more than a year), but instead use the talk page to discuss why you object to the edit, and then if the editor cannot substantiate just cause, then revert or modify (preferred method). In sum, be nice to other editors and modify or discuss other’s edits rather than reverting them. Thank you: --Sadi Carnot 11:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for the prompt reply! Let me put the record straight, I never converted the energy article into a disambiguation page, I was just attempting to bring it under the 32KB limit, for which someone had a constant reminder on the talk page. It was just an act like yours to bring prune the chemistry page, by moving chemical energetics subsection section to chemical thermodynamics article. Since the major portion of the article was dealing with the physics related content, I left it as such and moved the Chemistry, biology, geolory and cosmology related stuff to Energy (chemistry, Energy (biology) , Energy (earth sciences) and Energy (cosmology) respectively. My intent was apparently the same as yours wrt Chemistry article. It was later that some one converted that page to Energy (disambiguation) page. Any way as I have already clarified I never called you mindless, what I said was just that your particular act of moving the Chemical energetics subsection from Chemistry to Chemical thermodynamics article was mindless, because you did not care to see that the content of the subsection never really fitted Chemical Thermodynamics.
Any way let the bygones be bygones and let us be courteous to each other as is the accepted culture of wikipedia. CheersHallenrm 12:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)