Generalrelative (talk | contribs) Undid revision 1091844258 by Freethinker6799 (talk) Rv garbage dumping Tag: Undo |
Freethinker6799 (talk | contribs) →unacceptable reactions: new section Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile app edit Android app edit |
||
Line 433: | Line 433: | ||
:Glad I could help! [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative#top|talk]]) 22:40, 2 June 2022 (UTC) |
:Glad I could help! [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative#top|talk]]) 22:40, 2 June 2022 (UTC) |
||
== unacceptable reactions == |
|||
I realized that you removed All I've left on your talk page. that would explain a lot. [[User:Freethinker6799|Freethinker6799]] ([[User talk:Freethinker6799|talk]]) 02:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC) |
Revision as of 02:30, 7 June 2022
|
|
Pinned comment
George Floyd and Dostoevsky
Just an afterthought: I can't help asking myself, why do people hate George Floyd so much that they get themselves blocked in order to besmirch his reputation ? Maybe the answer has been given by Dostoevsky in his The Brothers Karamazov, when he has the old Karamazov say: "I played such a foul trick on a certain man that I started to hate him." If the roots of old racism were economic interests, maybe today's racism is rooted in bad conscience. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Recent edits to Scientific racism
Any thoughts on how to handle the recent long (6KB total) and poorly written edits to Scientific racism by a well-intentioned new student editor? Suggest on their user talk-page that they slow down and propose edits via the article talk-page? Tell them that a Wikipedia edit is not the same thing as a book report in their class? That edits should be proofread? NightHeron (talk) 19:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- Good question. Taking a quick look, this seems just on the line between revert good faith edits and take the time to revise. I'm honestly not sure which is more productive. It could be the latter if someone has time to give this the carefully copy-editing it needs. Phrases like
more powerful and fit races (White) were able to conquer those who were not (Native Americans and Blacks)
shouldn't be allowed to remain on high-traffic pages for long. In either case, a friendly message of the user's talk page might be a good idea, though the fact that we see that they're clearly acting in good faith should be stressed. Wish I had the bandwidth for this but unfortunately am a bit slammed at the moment. Generalrelative (talk) 01:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)- I see that Firefangledfeathers has undertaken the task of fixing things. Student editing has been a problem on many pages, especially ones related to social justice issues. The Wikipedia Foundation actively promotes student editing, which is understandable because Wikipedia badly needs large numbers of editors from the younger generation. However, US universities have a messed up incentive system, whereby instructors get brownie points for having their students edit Wikipedia, usually with zero regard for quality control or for whether the students are learning anything about how to edit (or, more generally, how to write). Some of the instructors are probably not competent editors themselves, and in any case they don't seem to be teaching the students how to be good editors. I think that the blame for the CIR problem with student editing rests not so much with the students as with their instructors. NightHeron (talk) 09:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- I went in and complemented what Firefangledfeathers had done by editing the last paragraphs of the "After 1945" section. Between the two of us, we shortened the student's edits by about 2/3, and I hope fixed them. If you have a chance, you might see how it reads now and whether you think it needs more work. Thank you. NightHeron (talk) 12:45, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- Awesome work! Looks good to me. Thanks for taking the time to work through those edits so methodically. The encyclopedia is better for it. Generalrelative (talk) 18:41, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- On a related note, NightHeron, I was looking at that user's contrib history and stumbled upon one of the most bonkers articles I've found to date: Cognitive elite. Unfortunately there are enough mentions of this "concept" in the popular press that it is unlikely the article would be approved for deletion, and I'm not super motivated to improve it. Just kind of stupefied that such a thing exists –– the perfect storm of IQ-related pseudo-intellectualism and middle-school level Nietzsche scholarship all wrapped into one WP article. At least it's not getting a lot of traffic. Generalrelative (talk) 18:50, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- Nice catch. Wouldn't there be a strong case for merging the salvageable part of Cognitive elite into The Bell Curve? Most of the lead is about the Herrnstein-Murray book. Parts of the article read like a WP:POVFORK of The Bell Curve article, although I can't say that it was deliberately written for that purpose. The parts about Nazism and Nietzsche are half-baked and poorly sourced (schoolworkhelper.net for Nietzsche??), and a case can be made for deleting most or all of that. The lead is slanted 100% toward fringe racial theories of intelligence, and the main body has one line (2 short sentences) referring to criticism.
- One possibility, following WP:MERGE, would be to open a discussion at Talk:The Bell Curve on merging the Cognitive elite article. In that case we could attract participation by posting notices on related talk-pages, such as at R&I and Scientific racism, as well as at FTN (since Cognitive elite is heavily slanted toward a fringe POV). It would certainly be easier to argue for a merge than for a delete. What do you think? NightHeron (talk) 19:59, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- That could definitely work. It would certainly be in the best interest of the encyclopedia. Thanks for your advice, as always. Generalrelative (talk) 20:55, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks. I started a merger discussion at Talk:The Bell Curve#Merger proposal. NightHeron (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- Much appreciated! Great work getting 'er done. Generalrelative (talk) 16:24, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks. I started a merger discussion at Talk:The Bell Curve#Merger proposal. NightHeron (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- That could definitely work. It would certainly be in the best interest of the encyclopedia. Thanks for your advice, as always. Generalrelative (talk) 20:55, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Lead image in White supremacy
Hi Generalrelative,
Here to discuss your recent edit: "Image did not belong in the lead. I am not sure it belongs anywhere in the article either, per MOS:IMAGE. What does it illustrate?"
It illustrates a clear distinction in the way white/"Aryan" people were depicted in Nazi Germany (a society widely acknowledged as white supremacist) versus Black people. The poster serves as an Exhibit-A of sorts when it comes to what white supremacy is.
The image may be considered offensive, but I imagine that any historical image attempting to convey the concept of "white supremacy" would be as well. There is no gore, no acute suffering, no atrocities. It seems that it adheres to MOS:SHOCK and MOS:OMIMG.
MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES doesn't apply as the article is about a belief regarding an ethnic group/race, not the group itself.
As for MOS:IMAGEQUALITY, the core strength of the image is that it's relatively old. The poster's age speaks to how long white supremacy has been around; that it's not a new phenomenon but one that the world has been dealing with for quite some time. In my mind this overrides concerns about the visual darkness of the image.
I still think it's fit for the lead. If that view isn't shared, I'd ask that we include it in the History:Germany section as it's a specific illustration of white supremacy in that country in the described time period.
Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweetstache (talk • contribs) 23:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Sweetstache, I would be happy to have this discussion with you on the article's talk page so that others can weigh in. Feel free to start a new thread there. Generalrelative (talk) 23:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
More forum-shopping by Ferahgo, this time on the ArbCom talk-page
You might already have noticed her latest efforts to circumvent consensus: [1]. She was tbanned once, and in the discussion she admits that she can't bear to let go of her POV and drop the stick. I learned of this latest discussion with arbs when I saw that she went to Stonk's user talk-page to invite him to support her there. NightHeron (talk) 22:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Wow, no I hadn't. At this point I just feel bad for her. Generalrelative (talk) 03:06, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
December 2021 at Women in Red
Women in Red | December 2021, Volume 7, Issue 12, Numbers 184, 188, 210, 214, 215, 216
|
--Innisfree987 (talk) 00:11, 27 November 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
January 2022 with Women in Red
Happy New Year from Women in Red Jan 2022, Vol 8, Issue 1, Nos 214, 216, 217, 218, 219
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
So is it also edit warring when you twice revert my edit? Ficaia (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Teamwork Barnstar | |
For making {{uw-ewsoft}} (permanent link) the perfect information template, in teamwork with Sdkb. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC) |
Thanks, ToBeFree! And to you, Sdkb, for both initiating and perfecting the revision! Generalrelative (talk) 17:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Probably still worth watching
[2] Doug Weller talk 19:47, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks Doug, will do. In the case of that edit I thought it best to offer an attempt at compromise: [3]. Generalrelative (talk) 01:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
George Floyd Fentanyl edit
I reviewed the talk page regarding consensus as well as the sources cited (which I had not reviewed prior to reverting your deletion) and I agree that it should not be included in the page, I took the information given at face value and didn’t check what consensus (or lack thereof) had been reached. In conclusion I agree with the arguments that were brought forward in the talk page and I stand behind not including the paragraph. Shipyard43328 (talk) 20:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- What a thoughtful note, Shipyard43328. I very much appreciate you taking the time to let me know about your thought process after that revert, and I will take it as a reminder of the importance of assuming good faith. Best regards, Generalrelative (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
February with Women in Red
Women in Red Feb 2022, Vol 8, Issue 2, Nos 214, 217, 220, 221, 222
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Thanks for the notification. I think things are being handled just fine, but I'll keep an eye on it. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- Much appreciated. Generalrelative (talk) 22:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Based on an article in the current NYRB about their correspondence, I added a sentence to Rushton's BLP about it. I'm thinking that something should also be added to E. O. Wilson, but in Wilson's BLP it will appear negative, so that might be controversial. What do you think? NightHeron (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads-up, NightHeron. I'll take a look when I have a bit more time. On the face of it, though, I don't see how the sentence could be DUE for one bio and not the other. Generalrelative (talk) 03:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you. I'll add it, and we'll see. NightHeron (talk) 09:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- @NightHeron: It's a fascinating article, and of course also very disappointing to read. Thanks for suggesting it. One more reminder that good scientists are flawed human beings like the rest of us. If you do get push-back from Wilson fans, I hope they will at least take the time to read the article. It would be hard to argue that research of that caliber doesn't merit a single sentence. Generalrelative (talk) 23:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for looking into it. So far there's no pushback. Mathsci has been working on the article, and in the process copy-edited what I'd put and added another source there, and that improved it a lot, I think. I'm hopeful that no one will object. NightHeron (talk)
- @NightHeron: It's a fascinating article, and of course also very disappointing to read. Thanks for suggesting it. One more reminder that good scientists are flawed human beings like the rest of us. If you do get push-back from Wilson fans, I hope they will at least take the time to read the article. It would be hard to argue that research of that caliber doesn't merit a single sentence. Generalrelative (talk) 23:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Avoiding edit war
There’s no reason why the burden is on me to bring it up on the article’s talk page, giving the fact I justified it as loaded language. “ Restoring status quo language” is relative to who wrote it in the first place. Doesn’t mean it’s in any way more correct. What you posted on my talk page doesn’t pertain to my edit or the fact it’s loaded language. Not sure how far want to take this. ---StevenBjerke97 talk 02:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'd be happy to discuss the matter on the article talk page where others can join the conversation. The notice I left on your talk page is a standard discretionary sanctions alert which does not imply wrongdoing. Anyone who shows interest in Toxic masculinity can expect to receive one, since it is a subject of gender-related controversy. Regarding "burden", typically we follow a process called WP:BRD (bold, revert, discuss). You made a bold edit and were reverted. If you disagree with the revert, the next step would be to open a talk page discussion. That's not a policy but it is a community norm. Best, Generalrelative (talk) 02:36, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
I understand in retrospect, I tend to be hawkish and jump if I suspect something isn’t neutral. No hard feelings. Cheers. ---StevenBjerke97 talk 02:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- Word, no hard feelings. I appreciate the circumspection. Generalrelative (talk) 04:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Major Dump
Just checking in - I see you discovered that MD was a sock. Quelle suprise!! Well done. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:00, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oui, j'étais choquée aussi! Alors. Best keep an eye out for this LTA: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RJII. Generalrelative (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Diop and UNESCO Sources
Hi Generalrelative,
How does the inclusion of other scholars violate the Fringe rules. I have provided the relevant sources as it states on page 31 on UNESCO History of Africa Volume 2:
"Professor Vercoutter remarked that, in his view, Egypt was African in its way of writing, in its culture and in its way of thinking"
Professor Lecant, for his part "recognised the same African character in the Egyptian temperament and way of thinking".
pg 38, "Professor Lecant began by stressing the African character of Egyptian civilisation"
Page 46, "Professor Lecant noted that important palaeo-African features in the cultural life of Egypt"
Page 47, "Professors Diop and Vercoutter agreed that the populations of the Egyptian reaches of the Nile Valley was homogenous as far as the southern extremity of the Delta".
"Professor Habachi unresevely supported the thoery of migrations from the Sahara on the basis of known studies. Professor Save-Soderbergh considered that the majority of Neolithic cultures in the Nile Valley belonged to a techno-complex of Saharan and Sudanese cultures"
The consensus on the talk section aside from Doug Weller did not provide any refutation based on sources. All of the quotations are listed from Chapter 1 and Annex to Chapter 1: Report of the symposium.16:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)WikiUser4020 (talk)
- Hello WikiUser4020, I'm glad to see that you've decided not to give up on editing Wikipedia after all. I've responded to you at Talk:Cheikh Anta Diop#Discussion. Best wishes, Generalrelative (talk) 04:52, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Hi General Relative, I will comply the guidelines to make a few more contributions. I have responded on the Ancient Egyptian race controversy. Also, on the Diop page is it possible to exchange the constructive appraisal quotes from Keith Crawford to Henry Louis Gates (Encyclopedia) as the latter is an authoritative source ?.WikiUser4020 (talk) 16:26, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- Hi WikiUser4020, please understand that this is not a bilateral negotiation. You need to engage the community (without casting aspersions on your collaborators!) in order to make constructive progress here. I'm glad to see that you are using the article talk page and will be happy to discuss the matter with you there when I have time. Thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 16:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
You've got mail
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Doug Weller talk 08:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
DNA IP editor now at WP:AN3
[4]. Doug Weller talk 15:28, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks Doug. Good observation about the likely connection with Pullbasket. Generalrelative (talk) 17:20, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
March editathons
Women in Red Mar 2022, Vol 8, Issue 3, Nos 214, 217, 222, 223, 224, 225
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
My edits
The name of these was called Italian Ethiopia even the Italian name under says the same thing and the people called especially descendants Italian Ethiopians stop changing edits with no good reason Imperoitaliano (talk) 20:29, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- I would be happy to discuss these edits with you on the article talk pages, where others can weigh in. Generalrelative (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Ancient Egyptian race controversy
Hi Generarelative, I strongly suggest you should restore the entire genetics section as it is no different to all the information included above about the anthropology. There is still content that are there that do not directly address the race controversy, but talk more about population which is what the DNA papers were highlighting also. It was honestly not a good idea to remove, and there is already a lot of unfair edits on the overall page of the same users pushing only one perspective. All my edit history has been fair, but this deleted section had nothing to do with synthesis of material whatsoever. Especially the statement by one of the researchers of the study was removed which is not right. Overall, it does contribute to the views on this controversy and is 100% relevant. Andymoshi (talk) 07:17, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Or we should add all those deleted parts in the DNA section towards the end, it is not good to have gotten rid of it in my honest opinion. Andymoshi (talk) 07:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
We can't just discard all of that info now, these are very important inclusions, so many sources and remarks were just thrown out. I also say this because there were things in this section not included on other Egypt pages, so now basically no one can come across these anymore. I encourage you to add it to the DNA portion, some of my edits with sources that I added last month are basically null and void now, which is disheartening... https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy&diff=1076063453&oldid=1076002943 Andymoshi (talk) 07:32, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Please refer to the article talk page, where a clear consensus was formed in favor of removing this section prior to my edit. Generalrelative (talk) 04:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Edits to social darwinism
Hi, I saw you reverted my changes to Social Darwinism. I made a post on the talk page some time ago talking about what I thought the major problems with the article are and some proposed resolutions. Could you be clearer what you think the problem with these edits are? I think demanding large amounts of consensus is a little unfair when I've had a section on the talk page up for over a month and a half now with little input.
More specifically, in what precise way do you think I've been revisionist?
BrigadierG (talk) 00:36, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- I've just responded on the article talk page (note that I was the one who responded to you previously). Feel free to continue the conversation there. Generalrelative (talk) 00:43, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Russian and french empire support
The Russian empire had advisers and a commander present in Battle of Adwa so they would be in the fighting side France sent weapons making them on the support side all these information i added are sourced stop changing pages for your own Nationalistic views Puntinator (talk) 05:39, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- I have responded on the article talk page, where I see that Cinderella157 has also commented. Generalrelative (talk) 07:37, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
April Editathons from Women in Red
Women in Red Apr 2022, Vol 8, Issue 4, Nos 214, 217, 226, 227, 228
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:44, 22 March 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Josephus
MOS:ERA is very clear that an article should use the dating style that was first used in the article, and that any suggested change should be discussed on the talk page. I don't understand what you find problematic here. The fact that the policy was violated back in 2015 is irrelevant. If you look at the article history, there have been several attempts since then to revert to the consensus style. Ficaia (talk) 22:23, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- That is in fact not what MOS:ERA says. The style that has been in place since 2015 is very obviously the
established era style
referred to in the guideline, and your edit warring over this is childish. In any case, the place to discuss the issue is the article talk page. Generalrelative (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2022 (UTC) - For any interested talk page watchers, this discussion has moved on to Wikipedia Talk: Manual of Style. Generalrelative (talk) 01:16, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Now an RfC: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC Preamble! Generalrelative (talk) 22:56, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Edit on white genocide conspiracy theory
Why is the edit on talk page is being continously removed? Katya72918 (talk) 14:08, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- Did you read the link to WP:SOAPBOX in my edit summaries? Generalrelative (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Can you elaborate more.Why is wikipedia encouraging blatant cheryypicking.I am asking for a source of a written sentence in that article. I can write "pandas are not dying by hunting", does that mean pandas are not dying or diminishing in numbers at all? Katya72918 (talk) 14:19, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- If your purpose here is to argue that the white genocide conspiracy theory is true, I suggest reading the article. If that doesn't do the trick, I'll refer you instead to WP:NONAZIS and instruct you to fuck off. Generalrelative (talk) 14:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
You've got mail
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Doug Weller talk 18:43, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
I wanted to commend and thank you for your work on clarifying era style. I've tried to do similar things and I know it's a difficult and thankless task. More than "thankless", people will blame you for the problems that come with solving problems. We may disagree on some things, but I appreciate all the effort you've put into this. Keep up the good work. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 18:38, 16 April 2022 (UTC) |
- Thanks, SchreiberBike! I appreciate it! Generalrelative (talk) 19:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
May Women in Red events
Women in Red May 2022, Vol 8, Issue 5, Nos 214, 217, 227, 229, 230
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Alternative left stuff
Thanks. Looks as though there may be a source, plus a COI.[5]. See [6]. Good faith editor I think who hasn't a clue about our policies, which is pretty standard. Doug Weller talk 10:18, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- Got it. I won't pile on too hard. Generalrelative (talk) 18:23, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hopefully they've got the message. Doug Weller talk 07:25, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
You've got mail
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Doug Weller talk 18:01, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
DSA article
Hello, I would like to know, kindly how come the DSA article is constantly being reverted with regards to political affiliation, cited as "far-left"? Looking through the sources, it seems like a link to an Israeli news organization is attached. As a nonpartisan source, I don't think we should refer to politically motivated articles when describing an organization. --RevsLost (talk) 7:21, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- See the article talk page where this has been discussed: Talk:Democratic Socialists of America#Far left in the infobox. I was initially one of those who objected to this language but a number of reliable sources were provided. I'm not sure if you mean to imply that the Times of Israel is unreliable on the topic of socialism, and if so why you might think that, but it would be a topic for the reliable sources noticeboard. Feel free to raise the issue there. Generalrelative (talk) 02:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
So, who was that user? Look at my contributions for the other blocks I placed. Drmies (talk) 00:14, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- Aha, well spotted! I just finished an SPI report: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ArsenalAtletico2017. Generalrelative (talk) 00:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
You removed my comment in talk:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 as WP:SOAPBOX. It wasn't meant as soapbox, but to go along with discussion of zoonotic origin. That is, meant for discussion related to improving the article. I am sorry if it didn't sound like that. Thanks. Gah4 (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for reaching out. With this topic in particular we've seen a lot of disruption from users who wish to use Wikipedia as a platform for their own original speculation and/or poorly substantiated pet theories. Upon reflection, however, I think I was mistaken in calling your comment SOAPBOXing, so I've self-reverted. But in the future, I would strongly suggest making sure that all your contributions to talk page discussions are based explicitly upon reliable sources and/or Wikipedia policies –– rather than relying on what you believe is likely to be the case. This is all detailed in our talk page guidelines. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 02:06, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Hey, I sent you one. Graham87 15:43, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
June events from Women in Red
Women in Red June 2022, Vol 8, Issue 6, Nos 214, 217, 227, 231, 232, 233
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 09:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
deleting a users comment
I assume it was an accident, please take more care. Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, it was. My apologies. Generalrelative (talk) 14:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
discrete parts
as written, the word 'parts' used twice in a longer sentence seemed confusing on the first read, but now 'discrete parts' almost seems redundant. thank you for clearing that up SkidMountTubularFrame (talk)
- Glad I could help! Generalrelative (talk) 22:40, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
unacceptable reactions
I realized that you removed All I've left on your talk page. that would explain a lot. Freethinker6799 (talk) 02:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)