150
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 5:
Line 5: + + + +
If you have a problem with my edits to Multiplication, you can use that talk page. My edits were fine.
:: 13 out of your last 15 edits have been talk, talk, talk, none of which I found informative, and your other two were edits to [[Multiplication]] that required reversion. We don't maintain a high quality level here that way. Please improve your quality. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:35, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:: 13 out of your last 15 edits have been talk, talk, talk, none of which I found informative, and your other two were edits to [[Multiplication]] that required reversion. We don't maintain a high quality level here that way. Please improve your quality. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:35, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::You can practically ''always'' adjust the scope just narrow enough to let 90/10 apply. Reality is that we had a discussion, and you simply didn't like what I had to say (to be fair, I also didn't like what you had to say, but alas, only one of us has a banhammer).
::And huhwhatnow? My Multiplication edits ''required reversion''? Aside from one (utterly pointless) edit war (which I later on resolved in an elegant way even though I still think that I had been correct in my initial edit - or do you assert that I was wrong simply because somebody reverted me?), my edits to that entry had been vast improvements that also cleared out factually wrong statements (such as the implication that multiplication and addition are the only commutative functions).
::I still maintain that I did good work and that this discussion is pointless because I already retreated from the talk page exchange that spawned this block warning. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 23:45, 5 September 2008 (EDT)