nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 11:
Line 11: − +
Template talk:Burma uprising (view source)
Revision as of 02:33, October 1, 2007
, 02:33, October 1, 2007→Reversion of picture etc.: grammar
*Philip, Ed and I reached an agreement about this. Thanks. --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 23:33, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
*Philip, Ed and I reached an agreement about this. Thanks. --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 23:33, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
:Umm, yes? Meaning what? That nobody else can edit it? That the (non-proper) noun "clergy" should be spelt with a capital "C"? That the same applies for "military junta"? That "monks" should not be linked? That there should be no mention of the death of the Japanese journalist? That the "it" that I replaced with "the violence" should actually refer to nothing in particular? That it should be written from an American POV? That's China's comments on the situation shouldn't be there? Etc., etc.?
:Umm, yes? Meaning what? That nobody else can edit it? That the (non-proper) noun "clergy" should be spelt with a capital "C"? That the same applies for "military junta"? That "monks" should not be linked? That there should be no mention of the death of the Japanese journalist? That the "it" that I replaced with "the violence" should actually refer to nothing in particular? That it should be written from an American POV? That's China's comments on the situation shouldn't be there? Etc., etc.?
:Unless the answers to ''all'' of those question is "yes" (and how could it be, given that some of those things had not been in the article when you made your agreement?), then you have not explained your reversion of my edits. An explanation of each of those changes would be appreciated.
:Unless the answer to ''all'' of those questions is "yes" (and how could it be, given that some of those things had not been in the article when you made your agreement?), then you have not explained your reversion of my edits. An explanation of each of those changes would be appreciated.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:32, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:32, 30 September 2007 (EDT)