User talk:66.58.130.56: Difference between revisions
The Stroll (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
confusing... |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
A comment would be greatly appreciated. I noticed tonight that Discospinster has posted his discussion page on the net with a discussion of mine on the page. Is there any way of getting him to remove the page from the net? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Discospinster] |
A comment would be greatly appreciated. I noticed tonight that Discospinster has posted his discussion page on the net with a discussion of mine on the page. Is there any way of getting him to remove the page from the net? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Discospinster] |
||
Thanks for your continuing |
Thanks for your continuing assistance. [[User:The Stroll|The Stroll]] 05:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC) |
||
:I am not quite sure what is being asked here. I am not following the conversation well. It seems to me that 70.171.229.32, another new editor, lost work and complained to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Discospinster&diff=prev&oldid=80922002 DiscoSpinster] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk%3ADelldot#Shaken_Baby Delldot] about reference format edits by David Ruben, not about you, perhaps having been in "edit conflict" (where the edit of one editor changes Wikipedia, and Wikipedia then refuses to keep a submitted edit by a second or later editor. If the editor doesn't back button on the browser, to recopy/paste the unsaved edit changes elsewhere, an editor will lose the new work. When "pointing" at some problem, using the "Edit history" and get the url for the problem edit(s) is most effective to show the exact verbiage being discussed. Sometimes AGF is important just because of confusion... With respect to your concerns about the Talk page, we usually don't edit them too much unless there is a policy violation (hate, threats, WP:BLP,...) and people who wipe nonpersonal stuff off (instead of Archiving the edits) may be seen as being sneaky.--[[User:66.58.130.56|66.58.130.56]] 05:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
[[User:The Stroll|The Stroll]] 05:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 05:57, 19 October 2006
Thank you for your concerns and my note. I hope you don't mind --- I changed the inserted section on “Ocular” to be shorter, more informative (easily comprehended), accurate, and objective by providing information from and a link to the American Academy of Ophthalmology’s web site [1] for “Shaken Baby Syndrome Resources.” This web page has sections on - Child Abuse - Shaking Injury - Ocular Involvement – Prognosis - Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS) – Reporting - Additional Resources and Figures; in addition to references. Also added information from an independent review of prominent Ophthalmology studies and their findings concerning "Inflicted Childhood Neurotrauma" (SBS) that was published in the Spring 2005 issue of The Royal College of Ophthalmologists' "Focus."[2] Added four references documenting other causes of retinal hemorrhages. Peace The Stroll 01:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
A comment would be greatly appreciated. I noticed tonight that Discospinster has posted his discussion page on the net with a discussion of mine on the page. Is there any way of getting him to remove the page from the net? [3]
Thanks for your continuing assistance. The Stroll 05:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- I am not quite sure what is being asked here. I am not following the conversation well. It seems to me that 70.171.229.32, another new editor, lost work and complained to DiscoSpinster and Delldot about reference format edits by David Ruben, not about you, perhaps having been in "edit conflict" (where the edit of one editor changes Wikipedia, and Wikipedia then refuses to keep a submitted edit by a second or later editor. If the editor doesn't back button on the browser, to recopy/paste the unsaved edit changes elsewhere, an editor will lose the new work. When "pointing" at some problem, using the "Edit history" and get the url for the problem edit(s) is most effective to show the exact verbiage being discussed. Sometimes AGF is important just because of confusion... With respect to your concerns about the Talk page, we usually don't edit them too much unless there is a policy violation (hate, threats, WP:BLP,...) and people who wipe nonpersonal stuff off (instead of Archiving the edits) may be seen as being sneaky.--66.58.130.56 05:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)