Talk:Gmail/Archive 30

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 25 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 35

on behalf of


To User:Timneu22

Regarding your undo of my contribution:

  1. (cur) (prev) 13:03, 18 January 2009 User:Timneu22 (Talk | contribs) (33,838 bytes) (Undid revision 264836386 by MBParker (talk) while the section could be improved, that revision made the section unreadable.) (undo)

I didn't find it "unreadable";

  • in fact I found it a notable improvement (well, that is IF you are on the side of seeing these Gmail users not being upset);
  • and in fact an improvement which will get it even more read
    • As, for instance, the way the quote was before (missing a word), with users searching for that string it might not even be found - or was that intentional? You don't work for Gmail, do you (trying to cover for them)? As apparently you didn't think could be an improvement, indeed claimed it "unreadable".

So rather than just undo this contribution as you just did (and most especially when you say it needs improvement), then what else do you suggest?

--and I almost was about to send just that message there, and may others may have; BUT even though I was peeved that you pretty matter-of-factly simply undid everything I added, I still did a little more research to find out what you had been doing to this page (As was it bad? Or was it good?) And...

I now see you created this section:

  1. (cur) (prev) 13:10, 4 January 2009 Timneu22 (Talk | contribs) (34,048 bytes) (→Criticisms: added "on behalf of "problem. hundreds of hits for this problem so it is worth mentioning.) (undo)

Yes, thank you very for writing it. And it IS a quite valuable contribution, with some very good research. So yes I guess you don't work for Gmail.

But before you just entirely undo someone's changes (and, yes, if you were the original creator), take a careful look at the changes and talk with them first. Sound reasonable? While initially you may not like the change, first ask "But what appears to be his/her intent?" And if positive (as this clearly was if you looked at it carefully), then talk with the person first.

Indeed was my edit really so horrible that you'd just have undo it all?! I think not.

Indeed if you look carefully, I didn't remove ONE THING of any of the very good stuff you found; indeed I only added and strengthened it. Yes, there were changes thru it all, and it may have startled you to see all your text rewritten a little bit, but first, before reacting and undoing, think of the person's intent. And read it carefully ---many if not all of your points & sentences are actually strengthened.

Moreover, I also agree with your initial version (before User:Ahunt got to it) where you put the citation footnotes right next to where they belong. And I disagree with User:Ahunt [who undid that]:

  1. (cur) (prev) 13:45, 4 January 2009 Ahunt (Talk | contribs) (34,049 bytes) (→"On behalf of": references moved to end of para for readability) (undo)

Under what Wikipedia writing rule can User:Ahunt back up such? Indeed hard to believe such a rule exists (else that it would make sense) as what good are citations and footnotes if you don't put them adjacent what they belong to.

In fact, after carefully reviewing them, I disagree with ALL 4 edits of your entry by User:Ahunt, all lessening it for unneeded and incorrect logic. Quoted with my comments appended:

  1. (cur) (prev) 13:51, 4 January 2009 Ahunt (Talk | contribs) (33,715 bytes) (→"On behalf of": forums are not acceptable sources - see WP:SPS) (undo)
    [NO, as did you bother to really look at the author's EXCELLENT link before you removed it? Or did you just mindlessly think "any forum citation must be bad", and then justified that with WP:SPS? As unless you can explain how some over 300 upset users were fabricated (being "self-published"), and on Google's own forum speaking against Google, this this clearly demonstrates the author's understated point that "A number of Gmail users have complained". And on top of that this is a VERY important point, indeed, the author's main & appropriate reason for putting this section in as he writes "hundreds of hits for this problem so it is worth mentioning" --or, in your editorial confidence User:Ahunt, did you miss that, too? Apparently you did, as you just cut out the point triggering the whole section.]
  2. (cur) (prev) 13:48, 4 January 2009 Ahunt (Talk | contribs) (33,881 bytes) (→"On behalf of": google search results are not acceptable refs) (undo)
    [BS! Very important to know how someone found something, and how to look for it again.]
  3. (cur) (prev) 13:46, 4 January 2009 Ahunt (Talk | contribs) (34,040 bytes) (→"On behalf of": code -> italics for readability and formatting) (undo)
    [NO. As did you bother to look at the source he's quoting before you made this edit? Seemingly not. As, by this formatting, the author is just carefully trying to quote the source exact as possible.]
  4. (cur) (prev) 13:45, 4 January 2009 Ahunt (Talk | contribs) (34,049 bytes) (→"On behalf of": references moved to end of para for readability) (undo)
    [NO, see my argument above on this topic. Indeed after your edit here with now 6 citations all in a row, it's a total confusing mess. ]
  • Sounds like User:Ahunt has gotten carried away with minor aesthetics and sadly even at a notable cost of important information, correctness, and clarity; and sadly is knowledgeable enough about Wikipedia (as citing WP:SPS) in order to, probably a lot of times, get away with it. I'll point User:Ahunt to here.
  • But User:Timneu22, other than just simply undoing all my edits (hey, don't become like User:Ahunt who changes stuff without taking the time to see or understand the big picture),
    I think you made a very important contribution here (and, compared to User:Ahunt, were very much in the right).

What are your thoughts? And I kindly ask you to undo your undo of my work, and instead suggest changes where really needed. MBParker (talk) 09:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


I don't mean any disrespect, but I cannot comprehend what you are trying to say here. Your writing style — tons of bold interspersed with the talk text, or lots of "small font" interspersed on the article— is unpleasing to the eye. The "on behalf of" section is fine as it is. It simply states, without POV, that this is a problem. I don't know why you feel the need to change, and I don't understand what you're trying to change. Further, I see that you have fewer than 50 edits on Wikipedia. You are just going to have to trust other editors when they tell you something is unreadable or when they tell you it is better another way. See WP:EGO. Timneu22 (talk) 12:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought that I also should add some thoughts to this discussion, since my name was mentioned:
  • I agree with User:Timneu22's reversion of your edit. I read what you had written about a half a dozen times and found it completely incomprehensible.
  • Your position that User:Timneu22 should have discussed your text before reverting it is not correct. Please read WP:BRD. This explains that the editing sequence is that you make a bold change, which you did, it is then reverted, which it was and then we discuss it and you try to gain consensus for your changes. The correct editing sequence is not that you make a bold change and then everyone else has to discuss it before it is reverted or edited.
  • The rest of your post above seems to contain a large number of complaints and thoughts about a large number of issues, and having read it several times I cannot understand what the subject is, or what you are seeking. It would probably help if you posted separate talk page entries on each subject, otherwise it is difficult for other editors to respond in a comprehensible manner and certainly impossible to get consensus for anything. - Ahunt (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, Ahunt. I can't understand what this guy is trying to say! Timneu22 (talk) 19:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)