From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Dear Triona, please can you explain your reversion of my edit here, as you did not give any explanation in your edit summary. By contrast, I gave a clear explanation for my edit in the summary box, which I still stand by. The word is quite simply not in the dictionary. If no response from you within seven days, then I will reinstate my edit. Thank you. No name is good name (talk) 12:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

No response, and now Triona claims to have retired from Wikipedia, so no point in waiting till tomorrow just because I said seven days. It's going back. No name is good name (talk) 06:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Bad example[edit]

The example used to illustrate the concept is an overlong, poorly written sentence that is hard to understand. It also uses characters from the Bible for no apparent reason. That makes it even harder to understand for any reader outside the specialized circle of religious people intimately familiar with Bible stories.Jtcarpet (talk) 17:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. The example is unnecessary given that the definitions sufficiently describe siblings-in-law. I am removing it for this reason. -- (talk) 19:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)