User talk:Anastrophe: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
Anastrophe (talk | contribs) →Kentucky Derby: Reply |
Anastrophe (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
<!-- ENTER YOUR COMMENTS BELOW THIS LINE; OR BETTER YET, CLICK THE "ADD TOPIC" LINK ALONG THE TOP RATHER THAN RAW EDITING --> |
<!-- ENTER YOUR COMMENTS BELOW THIS LINE; OR BETTER YET, CLICK THE "ADD TOPIC" LINK ALONG THE TOP RATHER THAN RAW EDITING --> |
||
== Elon Musk == |
|||
I'm not sure what the issue is. I added the Natalism category because he's well known for his advocacy there. [[User:Killuminator|Killuminator]] ([[User talk:Killuminator|talk]]) 17:10, 26 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:In the same edit you changed two instances of the ref name "WaPoDesantis" to "WaPOdessantis"; there was no edit summary explaining the change. Is there some reason for that change? cheers. [[User:Anastrophe|anastrophe]], [[User talk:Anastrophe|an editor he is.]] 19:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I'm not sure why that happened, I jumped ahead to the category part and inserted in alphabetically. [[User:Killuminator|Killuminator]] ([[User talk:Killuminator|talk]]) 19:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Fair enough. I can restore the category or you're welcome to do so yourself. cheers. [[User:Anastrophe|anastrophe]], [[User talk:Anastrophe|an editor he is.]] 19:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Same thing happened the second time I see. [[User:Killuminator|Killuminator]] ([[User talk:Killuminator|talk]]) 21:30, 26 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Yeah, no clue what's up with that. cheers. [[User:Anastrophe|anastrophe]], [[User talk:Anastrophe|an editor he is.]] 21:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Kentucky Derby]] == |
== [[Kentucky Derby]] == |
Revision as of 18:24, 29 May 2024
Posts here will be archived after I read them.
Thank you for continued efforts to bring better clarity to the subject article, something I always welcome. I think, though, we're dealing with an editor doing tendentious editing because, as it seems to be increasingly clear, they are not accepting of the sourced facts or have some kind of animus toward the subject. I have invited them (I'm not assuming their gender) to bring other reliable sources but they have so far refused, instead just seeming to grab at straws, saying the equivalent of "what about this?" even though their hypothesis turns up dry every time. I just thought it would be useful to try to explain the situation. Cheers! Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 18:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, I appreciate the background - and you're welcome re my efforts. I'm largely concerned with clarity of construction; the only 'expertise' I have is what I've learned from my wife, a lifelong horsewoman (I grew up in suburbia!). I can understand the other editor's confusion on this matter though - the sentences appear to have been originally constructed in an attempt to create the most brevity (desireable in the lede), but it winds up cramming too much info under one 'banner'. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)