| Revision as of 15:43, 30 November 2004 editSlrubenstein (talk | contribs)30,655 edits →Note← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:38, 3 December 2004 edit undoTigermoon (talk | contribs)46 edits →NoteNext edit → | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
| If Amgine is refering to my changes to the summary, all I reverted was your reversion of my changes. Why did you revert my changes? As I said, they mostly added content and clarification? You shouldn't revert work like that without providing any explanation. ] | If Amgine is refering to my changes to the summary, all I reverted was your reversion of my changes. Why did you revert my changes? As I said, they mostly added content and clarification? You shouldn't revert work like that without providing any explanation. ] | ||
| I do not understand that explanation. | |||
| I looked at the discussion on the discussion page, and acted out votes. | |||
| I cant understand what reason you could possibly have to revert implementing the votes unless you are a point-of-view-warrior, which is not justifiable. | |||
| To me it looked as if you had vandalised FTs changes, you were not editing it properly. It seemed as if you were just implementing your opinion and not taking the discussion page into account. | |||
| ] 14:38, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 14:38, 3 December 2004
Notice
Hi, all. Im not new to Misplaced Pages though I havent worked on it for about 16 months. And I probably won't do much on it even now, as Im quite busy at work, but if you want me to look at some articles for you, leave me a note, and ill let you know what I think. Tigermoon 17:50, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Note
It appears Slrubenstein disagrees with you. Cultural and historical background of Jesus - Amgine
Hi Tigermoon. I see that you reverted my chnges to the summary. Please do not do that. Most of my changes added information, and you shouldn't delete information. The summary distorted or misrepresented what I said; I am sure we all agree the summary should represent what people say. Slrubenstein
In your previous edit to the article, Slrubenstein reverted it. This is what I meant by the above. - Amgine 18:44, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
If Amgine is refering to my changes to the summary, all I reverted was your reversion of my changes. Why did you revert my changes? As I said, they mostly added content and clarification? You shouldn't revert work like that without providing any explanation. Slrubenstein
I do not understand that explanation. I looked at the discussion on the discussion page, and acted out votes. I cant understand what reason you could possibly have to revert implementing the votes unless you are a point-of-view-warrior, which is not justifiable. To me it looked as if you had vandalised FTs changes, you were not editing it properly. It seemed as if you were just implementing your opinion and not taking the discussion page into account. Tigermoon 14:38, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)