10:4410:44, 10 July 2023diffhist−10,819
Religion in Sweden
Undo vandalism. Stop edit warring. If you disagree, take it to the talk page. Actually discuss the matter, rather than just reverting.Tags: UndoReverted
10:4210:42, 10 July 2023diffhist−10,820
Religion in Sweden
I gained consensus and unanimity. I was completely unopposed! ...or can you point to ANY comment, in the talk page, that opposes my position? Or even any actual counter-argument, stated in the edit summaries?Tags: UndoReverted
10:4010:40, 10 July 2023diffhist+1
Religion in Sweden
I am the ONLY one, to have even ATTEMPTED to explain! Everyone else just reverts for no apparent reason, and refuses to discuss!Tag: Reverted
10:2810:28, 10 July 2023diffhist−10,819
Religion in Sweden
Pointing to the talk page is invalid, when no one uses it, and none of the reverts are valid, for the reasons I have given. Reverting vandalism (which the reverts amount to) isn't against Wikipedia policy.Tags: UndoReverted
09:4809:48, 10 July 2023diffhist+1
Religion in Sweden
Funny how no logged in editor is willing to explain or justify anything, or use the talk page to discuss anything, yet claim that those who do, are the unconstructive ones...Tag: Reverted
09:4109:41, 10 July 2023diffhist+48
Ironic (song)
If you do not understand it, how do you conclude that it is bad/wrong enough to revert? You can't. Hence, the reversion is no better than vandalism ...and how does one not understand the point of following the statement "I'd always embraced the fact that every once in a while I'd be the malapropism queen.", by pointing out that the errors aren't malapropisms, any more than the claimed "ironic" things are ironic?Tags: UndoReverted
09:3609:36, 10 July 2023diffhist+84
Jörmungandr
Reverting an edit, FOR NO APPARENT REASON, is unconstructive. Arguably vandalism. (a baseless and utterly unexplained claim, that it is unconstructive is, if very charitably interpreted, unacceptably insufficient)Tags: UndoReverted
03:1503:15, 2 July 2023diffhist+84
Jörmungandr
Other figures/beings in Norse myth (not sure about Fenrir, but him aside...), have actual names. Woden's/Odin's name having the same root as a descriptive term, or someone having a name that is the same as a descriptive term (which is true of ALL names!), is irrelevant. Those are still proper names.Tag: Reverted
12:2112:21, 3 June 2023diffhist−96
Contronym
I don't accept slanderous lies, nor reversions based on such. I gave a perfectly good explanation, and I will not tolerate anyone saying that I didn't give one, nor "conveniently" (and intentionally) ignore aspects of it, such as how extremely obscure the meaning of "put together" for cleave is.Tags: UndoReverted
04:1404:14, 3 June 2023diffhist−96
Contronym
You cannot revert an edit, for being done without giving a reason in the edit summary, when it has a perfectly good reason, in the edit summary. Saying that "cleave", in the meaning of putting together, isn't obscure, is beyond ludicrous ...and cleave with the meaning of putting together isn't the same word as cleave, with the meaning of separating. Not according to Wiktionary or Merriam-Webster. Note that most dictionaries don't even have the "put together" meaning.Tags: UndoReverted
14:4414:44, 10 May 2023diffhist+262
Tyrkisk peber
open a bag and look at the candies, and then taste them. Also, note the lack of "peppararom" (pepper aroma) in the ingredient list. Also, don't WP:HOUNDTags: UndoReverted