Editing User talk:AnteaterFeeder
Discussion page of User:AnteaterFeeder
More actions
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
::We are discussing this in two places now, but I'll just keep it here. Yeah, upon comparing the edits again, the second version is much better as it leaves out any mention of Duck ignoring Helo. The introduction alone would be an indication. My inclination is to leave it in, but as you said place it lower. Maybe even in a "Notes" section as it's still speculative? --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 15:29, 18 January 2007 (CST) | ::We are discussing this in two places now, but I'll just keep it here. Yeah, upon comparing the edits again, the second version is much better as it leaves out any mention of Duck ignoring Helo. The introduction alone would be an indication. My inclination is to leave it in, but as you said place it lower. Maybe even in a "Notes" section as it's still speculative? --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 15:29, 18 January 2007 (CST) | ||
::Thanks. I am pretty new to this, so I'm using this article as my teething process (rather than frak up one of the main characters). I will add the inference that Duck is a post-miniseries addition in a notes section as you advise and edit the main text to omit this inference. Thanks for the help guys...I promise my work will be better in the future. | ::Thanks. I am pretty new to this, so I'm using this article as my teething process (rather than frak up one of the main characters). I will add the inference that Duck is a post-miniseries addition in a notes section as you advise and edit the main text to omit this inference. Thanks for the help guys...I promise my work will be better in the future. | ||
:::Great! There's definitely a learning curve, and nobody's expected to be at 100% right from the get-go. However, being a good communicator and being open to criticism (as you appear to be) will take you far. I hope you'll find we hold the same standard from the smallest stubs on up to the more well worn paths. I had completely forgotten that tidbit you added. Thanks for the edit, and welcome aboard! --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 15:37, 18 January 2007 (CST) | :::Great! There's definitely a learning curve, and nobody's expected to be at 100% right from the get-go. However, being a good communicator and being open to criticism (as you appear to be) will take you far. I hope you'll find we hold the same standard from the smallest stubs on up to the more well worn paths. I had completely forgotten that tidbit you added. Thanks for the edit, and welcome aboard! --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 15:37, 18 January 2007 (CST) | ||
:::Don't worry. Seems that we may have jumped the gun a bit by removing it completely in the first place. I didn't do it, but I agreed with it and might have done it myself. But more because I misunderstood your intentions and/or because of the way it was worded. It's a valid observation, but we are careful to not state speculation as a matter of fact. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 15:39, 18 January 2007 (CST) | :::Don't worry. Seems that we may have jumped the gun a bit by removing it completely in the first place. I didn't do it, but I agreed with it and might have done it myself. But more because I misunderstood your intentions and/or because of the way it was worded. It's a valid observation, but we are careful to not state speculation as a matter of fact. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 15:39, 18 January 2007 (CST) | ||