User talk:Eric Winesett: Difference between revisions
imported>Catherine Woodgold (Being bold) |
imported>Eric Winesett No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Hi, Eric-- I will try to expand on the articles I've started but just haven't had the time yet. I never intended for any to remain stubs indefinitely.--[[User:Greg Lawrence|Greg Lawrence]] 19:42, 15 May 2007 (CDT) | Hi, Eric-- I will try to expand on the articles I've started but just haven't had the time yet. I never intended for any to remain stubs indefinitely.--[[User:Greg Lawrence|Greg Lawrence]] 19:42, 15 May 2007 (CDT) | ||
== Being bold == | == Being bold == | ||
Thank you very much for your encouraging comments at [[Talk:Contraception (medical methods)/Draft]]. What I've been doing is going ahead and editing in any changes (small or large) except those which I think have a significant risk of being rejected by others. Perhaps I need to adjust that: only those with a larger risk of being rejected could be suggested first on the talk page, while those with a smaller risk of being rejected could be edited in and then reverted (with explanation) by others if necessary. My habits might be based on a misunderstanding that I and some others had earlier, that reverting was against the rules; I think it turned out that it was only reverting without explanation that was against the rules. So perhaps I can be bolder in general. Yes, some of the changes you did were the same as some things I had suggested; others were different. I only went through the article once so there may have been things I missed. I agree with you that an article should have things like subject-verb agreement fixed before approval. --[[User:Catherine Woodgold|Catherine Woodgold]] 07:35, 3 June 2007 (CDT) | Thank you very much for your encouraging comments at [[Talk:Contraception (medical methods)/Draft]]. What I've been doing is going ahead and editing in any changes (small or large) except those which I think have a significant risk of being rejected by others. Perhaps I need to adjust that: only those with a larger risk of being rejected could be suggested first on the talk page, while those with a smaller risk of being rejected could be edited in and then reverted (with explanation) by others if necessary. My habits might be based on a misunderstanding that I and some others had earlier, that reverting was against the rules; I think it turned out that it was only reverting without explanation that was against the rules. So perhaps I can be bolder in general. Yes, some of the changes you did were the same as some things I had suggested; others were different. I only went through the article once so there may have been things I missed. I agree with you that an article should have things like subject-verb agreement fixed before approval. --[[User:Catherine Woodgold|Catherine Woodgold]] 07:35, 3 June 2007 (CDT) | ||
Revision as of 10:52, 3 June 2007
Hi, Eric-- I will try to expand on the articles I've started but just haven't had the time yet. I never intended for any to remain stubs indefinitely.--Greg Lawrence 19:42, 15 May 2007 (CDT)
Being bold
Thank you very much for your encouraging comments at Talk:Contraception (medical methods)/Draft. What I've been doing is going ahead and editing in any changes (small or large) except those which I think have a significant risk of being rejected by others. Perhaps I need to adjust that: only those with a larger risk of being rejected could be suggested first on the talk page, while those with a smaller risk of being rejected could be edited in and then reverted (with explanation) by others if necessary. My habits might be based on a misunderstanding that I and some others had earlier, that reverting was against the rules; I think it turned out that it was only reverting without explanation that was against the rules. So perhaps I can be bolder in general. Yes, some of the changes you did were the same as some things I had suggested; others were different. I only went through the article once so there may have been things I missed. I agree with you that an article should have things like subject-verb agreement fixed before approval. --Catherine Woodgold 07:35, 3 June 2007 (CDT)