| Revision as of 07:37, 14 December 2007 edit70.251.126.92 (talk) ←Replaced page with 'You are a dumbfuck - your mom gives good head.~~~~'← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:37, 14 December 2007 edit undoSlakr (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators33,695 editsm Reverted edits by 70.251.126.92 (talk) to last version by PerspicaciteNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| * | |||
| You are a dumbfuck - your mom gives good head.] (]) 07:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Archive== | |||
| *] | |||
| == Re:Mugabe == | |||
| Hi. I didn't recognise your signature. Seems as though you changed it and was surprised to see it was you that left me a comment. | |||
| I did hum and hah whether or not to leave that statement there but though if an adequate citation or two could be found then it could stand. Thinking about it again I agree with your decision to remove it. | |||
| ] (]) 19:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==History of Zimbabwe== | |||
| I was wondering why you reverted all the edits I made. As you know I spent much time several months ago building up this article. I was merely trying to improve it. ] <small>]</small> 00:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Three reasons: | |||
| * Inconsistent spelling style | |||
| * Unnecessary addition of section titles | |||
| * There is a separate article for Zimbabwe's economic history | |||
| I was trying to standardize the spellings with US type. I am quite amenable to use the variant used in Zimbabwe – presumably the British English style. | |||
| If you look at many history articles you will see many sub sections - they make it easier for the user to navigate the article. See ] ] | |||
| As far as the economic history goes - it does have a separate page. However in the same way that a small section for history is put on the main Zimbabwe page similarly a small economic section should be put here. One cannot understand Zimbabwe’s history since 1980 unless one has a notion of its economic history. Had its economy performed better undoubtedly the politics would have been radically different. I was deliberately very brief. | |||
| I also added some photos that legitimately illustrate the article. | |||
| Could we not discuss these piece by piece. | |||
| ] <small>]</small> 01:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 07:37, 14 December 2007
Archive
Re:Mugabe
Hi. I didn't recognise your signature. Seems as though you changed it and was surprised to see it was you that left me a comment.
I did hum and hah whether or not to leave that statement there but though if an adequate citation or two could be found then it could stand. Thinking about it again I agree with your decision to remove it. Mangwanani (talk) 19:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
History of Zimbabwe
I was wondering why you reverted all the edits I made. As you know I spent much time several months ago building up this article. I was merely trying to improve it. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 00:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Three reasons:
- Inconsistent spelling style
- Unnecessary addition of section titles
- There is a separate article for Zimbabwe's economic history
I was trying to standardize the spellings with US type. I am quite amenable to use the variant used in Zimbabwe – presumably the British English style.
If you look at many history articles you will see many sub sections - they make it easier for the user to navigate the article. See History of France German Empire
As far as the economic history goes - it does have a separate page. However in the same way that a small section for history is put on the main Zimbabwe page similarly a small economic section should be put here. One cannot understand Zimbabwe’s history since 1980 unless one has a notion of its economic history. Had its economy performed better undoubtedly the politics would have been radically different. I was deliberately very brief.
I also added some photos that legitimately illustrate the article.
Could we not discuss these piece by piece. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 01:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)