User talk:Misortie/Archive 2

WP:LEAD and Abraham Lincoln

Your version of the opening paragraph of Abraham Lincoln was not bad, but the current version is better, per the guideline, WP:LEAD. WP:LEAD recommends that, as in all good expository writing, we attempt whenever possible to use the opening sentence to make the strongest case for the subject's notability. That Lincoln was the first president assassinated is notable, and is mentioned at the end of the opening paragraph, but an overwhelming consensus of historians places Lincoln's greatest significance on the issues of slavery and preservation of the Union. (At one time there were actually about eight citations supporting that, but the consensus was that it made the lead look ugly, so they were spread around the article.)

Looks like you might be a good writer, so I'm happy to make your acquaintence. Hope to see you around more often. Unschool 19:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to presume that you had not yet read the above post when you made this edit. You said "No reason given." The reason is given above. Please respond to this reasoning; I'll let your edit stand for the time being, since you have introduced no factual errors. Look forward to the discussion. Unschool 20:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I made a small change to the structure of the lead, nothing more and nothing less. Studdying other articles on US presidents, I concluded that this was a good change. Perhaps you could give me a specific reason for why you object to my grammar change, based, of coarse, on grammar. You gave NO reason as to why you removed all the edits, just the one on the assassination in the lead.--Frank Fontaine (talk) 20:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

My change had nothing to do with grammar. It had to do with WP:LEAD. All I did was restore the wording for which consensus was carefully worked out by several editors over a year ago. Your grammar is perfectly fine, but grammar is not the sole (nor even the paramount) standard by which articles are judged. If you look at my first post on this page, I explained about the opening sentence and about WP:LEAD. Have you read the guideline? Unschool 22:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

And why don't you go back and read the article and you will see that i have changed nothing BUT grammar. The INFO has not changed in the lead. And now I’m just going to assume you're just being exceedingly arrogant by not understanding this.--Frank Fontaine (talk) 09:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Be careful with your assumptions. If I was truly "arrogant", I would not be engaging an editor as new as you are so patiently as I am. Let's both assume good faith regarding one another, alright?

Okay, so when you made this change, are you calling it a "grammar change"? I don't see it that way, but perhaps you see it as a grammar change because you are breaking up a long sentence into two shorter sentences. If that's what you call a grammar change, I accept your explanation, but you also need to understand that it is not "just" a grammar change. Here's why:

WP:LEAD tells us that the opening sentence is supposed to tell us what is most notable about the subject of the article. In the previous version, before your change, the opening sentence told us that Lincoln preserved the Union and ended slavery. In the version after your change, the opening sentence merely tells us that Lincoln was the 16th President. In other words, in the old version, the phrase the 16th President of the United States is merely a non-restrictive appositive, whereas in your version, the same phrase becomes the entire predicate. There is, therefore, certainly a grammatical element to the change, but the significance of the change is not grammatical (both your version and the old version were proper grammar), the significance is about the "weight" of the opening sentence. Is my meaning any clearer? Unschool 17:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

RE:One word to describe Islam.

Frank Fontaine! Bioshock is *so* amazing, I love that game, it was half the reason I updated my PC; I refuse to play shooters on consoles. And it's quite the Islamic criticism of Ayn Rand at that. Muslims unfortunately are the confused ones in this sad love triangle of Islam, Muslims, and the Universe. --Afghana ^[talk] 08:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I would have actually bought a PS3 if it wasn't for a certain hypervisor block that prevented me from running graphical applications on Linux. My idea was to run Linux and then play games I legally owned from my Playstation 3 through emulation. Like, imagine four player Goldeneye on PS3 with four controllers. Not only would would it run on HD, you'd have wireless controllers. --Afghana ^[talk] 19:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate edit summary

The edit summary which you provided here [1] is not in accordance with Wikipedia's code-of-conduct. If you have an issue with another editor's actions, please bring it up on the appropriate talk page, using more restrained language. Thank you. Favonian (talk) 13:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I don’t think a singular use of the F-Word requires you to come her and tell me off, especially when I was reverting the edits of someone who makes a habit of not giving any reason for reverting edits themselves. Inappropriate? Yes I accept that.--Frank Fontaine (talk) 13:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

As the person that the comment was directed to, I disagree and suggest you read Wikipedia's code-of-conduct. Your comment was not appreciated nor was it in the spirit of the Wikipedia community. In addition, if you are to make changes to 2009, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Recent years before you edit the page. ttonyb1 (talk) 13:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of Wikipedia:Recent years and seeing as the man in question hasn’t been heard of in years i agree with it. As for being civil, I see it as less than civil to revert without giving a reason. But I accept my mistakes. --Frank Fontaine (talk) 13:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Cornwall

Thank you. Best, Daicaregos (talk) 11:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism

Thanks for your revert, here. Some people have a strange sense of humour. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 13:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Np. --Frank Fontaine (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

September 2009

Welcome, and thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia. However, this is an encyclopedia and the articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits, as you did to Anti-Social Behaviour Order. Readers looking for accurate information will not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, try the sandbox, where you can write practically anything you want. Put this sort of thing in the page talk, not the page please! Smaug123 (talk) 15:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Tis'a hidden comment, and i did say you could delete it! --Frank Fontaine (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

And don't call me a vandal. I think if you check my edit history you will find I am anything but. --Frank Fontaine (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

And I have amended myself by making a useful edit. --Frank Fontaine (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)