A new Wikipedian.
Welcome, Rob (Mr. Salzman)! Thanks for changing the Aruba article.
No problem. Sorry about the initial misunderstanding. I'll try to contribute what I can, in my own words. :)
Hot damn, Rob!! It's me, AyeSpy! Wotthehellerya doin around these digs?!? In fact, just because you are here, I may put some of my pages back up...
Hey Spy! I got an email inviting me here ... and you know me - always looking for ways to waste what little spare time I've got... Hope to read you here!
Question: I quite like my writeup of Charlemagne, and don't particularly care for the changes. Is it kosher to recorrect someone's correction of my writing? I certainly understand that in this environment, we don't own our own words... <grin>
Please, go ahead! Usually in the event that something goes back and forth we start a talk page to clear up what's happening. I'm the one who changed your write up, and you're welcome to change it back, except I found a few things misleading: the kingdom didn't collapse after Charlemagne, but after his successor, and it didn't break into two pieces, but four, of which I would say Italy is pretty significant, if often neglected. I should mention, though, that any quick gloss is doomed to be overwritten sooner or later, by something more thorough.
-Josh Grosse :)
You're absolutely right re: capitol/capital. I have a history of confusing the two. Of course, you don't need my permission to change them. :) -- STG
An additional misspelling? Made by moi? Never! ;-) --STG
Cool addition, that Oregon constitution. May I make a recommendation? Sometimes I personally click 'this change is a minor edit' when I'm doing large blocks of stuff like this. I do a handful as major edits, so people can see what I'm doing, but then I do the rest as minor edits.
This keeps from churning the RecentChanges page as much.
If you feel differently, by all means do differently. :-)
Thanks - I never knew what the minor edit did. I'll make judicious use of it now...
Wow, Rob. You're up late. I was quite serious about nomads/wikipedia. I think there's maybe five of 'em could contribute a little something meaningful...
Sure. What would it hurt?
And at least one of us that are lurking about trying to discern the difference betwixt meaningful and useful. And still wondering if he should care if he doesn't comply to someone's differing definition thereof. Rob, you and AyeSpy generally have some immediately thought-provoking articles here. I'd classify those under meaningful, but immediately thought-provoking articles are not the only meaningful somethings produced here. I want to contribute something meaningful and I'd like to do so within conventions and without elitism. Any advice on how to do such? --Invictus