Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit, rollback
907
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 15:
Line 15: + +
nothing is personal
:::And so what is your opinion of the issues raised above? I don't think CMurphy meant any offence by raising the issue with Andy, but I also don't think anyone needs to ask anyone's permission to suggest changes to articles. I don't think there is any call for you to get offended whenever someone doesn't ask your permission about altering an article you wrote over 3 years ago. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 00:07, 22 July 2012 (EDT)[[
:::And so what is your opinion of the issues raised above? I don't think CMurphy meant any offence by raising the issue with Andy, but I also don't think anyone needs to ask anyone's permission to suggest changes to articles. I don't think there is any call for you to get offended whenever someone doesn't ask your permission about altering an article you wrote over 3 years ago. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 00:07, 22 July 2012 (EDT)[[
:::: I was not so much offended as surprised. That article, or articles like it ([[King John]], [[Edward I]] , [[Henry VI]], [[Wars of the Roses]] and some Explorers articles were all vetted by "professionals" here (well after the act of course - they were social occasions) and at least passed, given the criteria I quoted. I have criticised edits, but they have been two liners or obvious vandalism or trolls back in the good ol' days but never have I said an article that has obviously had some work put into it is crap, which is basically what he said. Not without getting onto the article's or editor's talkpage first. Common courtesy. Look at my chats with Joachim or JDWPianist's talks with me. Cheers. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 01:01, 22 July 2012 (EDT)
:::: I was not so much offended as surprised. That article, or articles like it ([[King John]], [[Edward I]] , [[Henry VI]], [[Wars of the Roses]] and some Explorers articles were all vetted by "professionals" here (well after the act of course - they were social occasions) and at least passed, given the criteria I quoted. I have criticised edits, but they have been two liners or obvious vandalism or trolls back in the good ol' days but never have I said an article that has obviously had some work put into it is crap, which is basically what he said. Not without getting onto the article's or editor's talkpage first. Common courtesy. Look at my chats with Joachim or JDWPianist's talks with me. Cheers. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 01:01, 22 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::You are taking it personally when it clearly was not intended to be so. It makes no difference who wrote it. If you aren't prepared to have your work edited mercilessly then do not submit it here.
::::::So, getting back to the article itself, what are your thoughts on the issue of whether the conjecture about Edward II's sexuality and specifically whether it should be included in the article and in what form. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 01:21, 22 July 2012 (EDT)