| Revision as of 00:16, 6 May 2008 editRC-0722 (talk | contribs)Rollbackers7,982 edits →Mediation case: reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:46, 21 May 2008 edit undoChrisjnelson (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users59,208 edits →Mediation caseNext edit → | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| :] where you had said "Hmm. I think the leads should have the word originally to keep traded and nono-traded player pages uniform" ] (]) 00:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC) | :] where you had said "Hmm. I think the leads should have the word originally to keep traded and nono-traded player pages uniform" ] (]) 00:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::OK, just wondering. '''''] <sup>]</sup>/]''''' 00:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC) | ::OK, just wondering. '''''] <sup>]</sup>/]''''' 00:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :::The "originally" debate is no an issue of grammar. I have no problem with you removing the word from articles, but don't put grammar as an excuse in the edit summary because that's bullshit. It's simply false.►''']'''<sup>'']''</sup> 17:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:46, 21 May 2008
Mediation case
How did I get invovled in this again? RC-0722 /1 00:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- User talk:Chrisjnelson#Originally where you had said "Hmm. I think the leads should have the word originally to keep traded and nono-traded player pages uniform" 67.137.0.28 (talk) 00:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- OK, just wondering. RC-0722 /1 00:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- The "originally" debate is no an issue of grammar. I have no problem with you removing the word from articles, but don't put grammar as an excuse in the edit summary because that's bullshit. It's simply false.►Chris Nelson 17:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)