User talk:98.199.120.129

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] March 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Limited liability company. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. WinterSpw (talk) 19:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Your (canned) note to me claimed I removed content from the article, though I did no such thing. The "i.e." as used in that bullet point was wrong. If you don't like my change, feel free (obviously) to go with something else. But don't revert the article to a grammatically worse version, especially not if your primary complaint is that I didn't detail the change in the "edit summary" box. (I assume you are in fact examining the changes made, rather than automatically reverting changes without an edit summary.)

Since I do not have a Wikipedia acct, you can reach me at Yahoo - the username is YashaNNNN, where NNNN is the year of the first manned moon landing. (Please don't send another cut & paste note.) 98.199.120.129 (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for contributing to "Limited liability company". However, you changed "(i.e., see Virginia and Delaware LLC Acts)" to "(q.v. Virginia and Delaware LLC Acts)" without giving a coherent reason in the "Edit summary". I don't know what q.v. is, and neither will most people, so I reverted it. If you see my userpage (User:WinterSpw), it says in the first subsection, first line, "Important: If you're going to edit an article, always remember to give a reason for the edit; otherwise it will be assumed to be unsourced and may get reverted." Thanks again. WinterSpw (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't check your user page before making the first change. The very first line of said page is your claim that you fix (i.a.) "grammatically incorrect ... articles." But if you "don't know what q.v. is," how do you know whether it's correct? Do you go around reverting other changes just because -you- don't know what they mean? The ironic thing of course is that you could check WP for q.v. (and be redirected to the page for Latin expressions). But that's OK - I went back and dumbed down the LLC change - I even included a summary. And yeah, I am being a total jerk about this... but don't present yourself as a grammar maven if you're not one. Speaking of which, why didn't you fix the incorrect use of i.e. in the first place? Didn't you see it was wrong, or are you simply more hung up on reverting changes without edit summaries? That i.e. error was part of the article at the time of your first revisions, which pre-date mine by at least a week.  :-) And with that, I will leave you with the last word. -Yasha PS. You will also find i.a. on the Latin expressions list. 98.199.120.129 (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Long statement short, I go around reverting changes that most people who read the article will not understand. If you don't mind my asking, how did you learn all these abbreviations? =P WinterSpw (talk) 04:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)