User talk:Jmc

An attack on my support for parentheses

Why did you undo my revision on the article Edward Elgar? ChristianGL 20:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ChristianGL had revised "… Land of Hope and Glory, which … was also issued (with slightly different words) as a separate song" to "… was also, with slightly different words, issued as a separate song".)

… simply because the previous parenthesized version flows better, Your revision was more awkwardly expressed. -- Jmc 22:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree. I can't understand why you parenthesize everything, when there are other simpler ways to write an article. Watch your language, I do not think my revision were awkwardly expressed. ChristianGL 15:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you don't agree, Christian, but I'm afraid you must bow to my greater familiarity with English grammar and style. (In fact, it was not I who composed the sentence you amended, and I'm simply preferring their expression over yours.)

I simply can't understand why you should say that I "parenthesize everything" - this sentence and most in the article are not parenthesized.

Also, I don't appreciate being told to "Watch your language"! -- Jmc 03:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hatto

JMC, I know you have the best of intentions, but you broke 3RR. The anonymous user was warned, and so it's only fair that you also be warned. If that user is blocked he/she will have a valid claim to have you blocked. --Otheus 09:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I saw the war brewing, but didn't take the time to read the point/counterpoints. But I'm nearly always available to help. --Otheus 09:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting the above kindly warning, Otheus, but, with respect, I believe you are incorrect in saying that I "broke 3RR". 3RR states that "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period". The History of the Hatto article shows that I performed three reverts on the anonymous user's 'Morrison' insertion (21:33, 11 March 2007; 22:16, 11 March 2007; 23:05, 11 March 2007), following Stesimbrotus' second revert (18:06, 11 March 2007). So I went up to the limit, but not over it, I believe.

I do appreciate your offer of being there to help. -- Jmc 19:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of ImgBurn article

The software has relatively few hits on Google, all of which are either from the manufacturer or simply link to downloads, etc. The software's existence does not make it notable.