Difference between revisions of "User talk:Peter Frouman"
From XFamily - Children of God
m |
(→Loving Jesus) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
__NOINDEX__ | __NOINDEX__ | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Press== | ||
Peter, whaddaya think about the possible method I posted on [[:Category talk:Press]]? You can see it in action under [[:Category:Press]] with "Press:Arizona Daily Star" under the letter A. --[[User:Monger|Monger]] 18:42, 20 Jul 2005 (CDT) | Peter, whaddaya think about the possible method I posted on [[:Category talk:Press]]? You can see it in action under [[:Category:Press]] with "Press:Arizona Daily Star" under the letter A. --[[User:Monger|Monger]] 18:42, 20 Jul 2005 (CDT) | ||
: That's an excellent method. I didn't see your posts until I had already created a few subcategories using only the press outlet name. I tried to move them to a Press:Press Outlet name but it didn't work, possibly because I don't have sufficient privileges to do that. So if you could rename/clean those up, I'll do the rest using <nowiki>[[Category:Press:Press Outlet]]</nowiki> and the sort key.[[User:Peterf|Peter F.]] 18:53, 20 Jul 2005 (CDT) | : That's an excellent method. I didn't see your posts until I had already created a few subcategories using only the press outlet name. I tried to move them to a Press:Press Outlet name but it didn't work, possibly because I don't have sufficient privileges to do that. So if you could rename/clean those up, I'll do the rest using <nowiki>[[Category:Press:Press Outlet]]</nowiki> and the sort key.[[User:Peterf|Peter F.]] 18:53, 20 Jul 2005 (CDT) | ||
:: I don't think cat.s can be moved, but I'll delete the old ones. --[[User:Monger|Monger]] 19:25, 20 Jul 2005 (CDT) | :: I don't think cat.s can be moved, but I'll delete the old ones. --[[User:Monger|Monger]] 19:25, 20 Jul 2005 (CDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==[[Loving Jesus]]== | ||
| + | :Regarding [http://www.xfamily.org/index.php?diff=22381 this edit], I am wondering if any of the changes made were potentially good? Was too much done at once? The first section is very big, I found it a chore to get through and I like to read 700 page novels =/ [[User talk:Tyciol|Ty]] 19:50, 29 July 2012 (EDT) | ||
| + | ::I prefer the original version and I don't think it's too long. However, I have approved some of your revisions to other pages. Regarding some of the ones I didn't approve: those were edits correcting errors found in the original version of an archived document. To preserve the integrity of the archive, errors (whether grammatical, factual or other types of errors) present in the original version of an archived document should never be corrected. In some cases it is acceptable to add an Editor's note as long as it's very clear that the note is not part of the original document. [[User:Peter Frouman|Peter Frouman]] 20:52, 30 July 2012 (EDT) | ||
Latest revision as of 00:52, 31 July 2012
Press
Peter, whaddaya think about the possible method I posted on Category talk:Press? You can see it in action under Category:Press with "Press:Arizona Daily Star" under the letter A. --Monger 18:42, 20 Jul 2005 (CDT)
- That's an excellent method. I didn't see your posts until I had already created a few subcategories using only the press outlet name. I tried to move them to a Press:Press Outlet name but it didn't work, possibly because I don't have sufficient privileges to do that. So if you could rename/clean those up, I'll do the rest using [[Category:Press:Press Outlet]] and the sort key.Peter F. 18:53, 20 Jul 2005 (CDT)
- I don't think cat.s can be moved, but I'll delete the old ones. --Monger 19:25, 20 Jul 2005 (CDT)
Loving Jesus
- Regarding this edit, I am wondering if any of the changes made were potentially good? Was too much done at once? The first section is very big, I found it a chore to get through and I like to read 700 page novels =/ Ty 19:50, 29 July 2012 (EDT)
- I prefer the original version and I don't think it's too long. However, I have approved some of your revisions to other pages. Regarding some of the ones I didn't approve: those were edits correcting errors found in the original version of an archived document. To preserve the integrity of the archive, errors (whether grammatical, factual or other types of errors) present in the original version of an archived document should never be corrected. In some cases it is acceptable to add an Editor's note as long as it's very clear that the note is not part of the original document. Peter Frouman 20:52, 30 July 2012 (EDT)
