User talk:80.41.92.62: Difference between revisions
Khaosworks (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
|||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
My difficulty with the Lawrence Miles edits was that it seemed to be whitewashing the controversies that he stirred up with his negative reviews. My apologies for reverting more than that - I see now that there were additional edits. My only defence is that when I see it is an anonymous IP is tend to assume malicious intent. In any case, I have restored your edits and retained the parts about the controversy. Do consider getting yourself a Wikipedia account; it's always easier to trust someone if there's a name attached to the edits, if you know what I mean. --[[User:Khaosworks|khaosworks]] ([[User talk:Khaosworks|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Khaosworks|contribs]]) 12:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC) |
My difficulty with the Lawrence Miles edits was that it seemed to be whitewashing the controversies that he stirred up with his negative reviews. My apologies for reverting more than that - I see now that there were additional edits. My only defence is that when I see it is an anonymous IP is tend to assume malicious intent. In any case, I have restored your edits and retained the parts about the controversy. Do consider getting yourself a Wikipedia account; it's always easier to trust someone if there's a name attached to the edits, if you know what I mean. --[[User:Khaosworks|khaosworks]] ([[User talk:Khaosworks|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Khaosworks|contribs]]) 12:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC) |
||
Hi |
|||
Not sure how to reply to you ... but I have an account now :) |
|||
I wasn't trying to whitewash, but I felt that to define a writer through one piece of controversy was perhaps doing him a disservice ... It also suggests he posts negative things to cause a reaction which I don't think is true. He's also posted a lot more besides this and I know if it were me, then I'd wonder at the veracity of a biography which seemed skewed in this way. But I accept that the controversy was there which is why I described him as controversial. Note that his website has a new addy now - www.beasthouse.co.uk which should be the more-permanent home for his blog and so on for the next few years at least. |
|||
Thanks for explaining, appreciated. And I wonder if you might consider revising back the whole 'controversy' paragraph as it was over a year ago now and somehow fades into the background against all the immense praise that his ABOUT TIME series is generating (and there's not a mention of this in there). Balance is good I feel. |
|||
All the best |
|||
David |
|||
Revision as of 14:09, 9 July 2006
Lawrence Miles
Hi David:
My difficulty with the Lawrence Miles edits was that it seemed to be whitewashing the controversies that he stirred up with his negative reviews. My apologies for reverting more than that - I see now that there were additional edits. My only defence is that when I see it is an anonymous IP is tend to assume malicious intent. In any case, I have restored your edits and retained the parts about the controversy. Do consider getting yourself a Wikipedia account; it's always easier to trust someone if there's a name attached to the edits, if you know what I mean. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 12:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC) Hi
Not sure how to reply to you ... but I have an account now :)
I wasn't trying to whitewash, but I felt that to define a writer through one piece of controversy was perhaps doing him a disservice ... It also suggests he posts negative things to cause a reaction which I don't think is true. He's also posted a lot more besides this and I know if it were me, then I'd wonder at the veracity of a biography which seemed skewed in this way. But I accept that the controversy was there which is why I described him as controversial. Note that his website has a new addy now - www.beasthouse.co.uk which should be the more-permanent home for his blog and so on for the next few years at least.
Thanks for explaining, appreciated. And I wonder if you might consider revising back the whole 'controversy' paragraph as it was over a year ago now and somehow fades into the background against all the immense praise that his ABOUT TIME series is generating (and there's not a mention of this in there). Balance is good I feel.
All the best
David