On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 10:53 PM, Simon Phipps <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 14 Mar 2012, at 02:36, Rob Weir wrote: >> >> Let's see if anyone else thinks this is too verbose. Remember, FAQ's >> are not intended to be read as an article, one after another. >> Typically they are things we we link to and point users to for >> specific questions. > > Since you have essentially eliminated my contributions and replaced them with > something different, I'll withdraw from this activity until the partisan > style you've chosen changes. A pity as we genuinely had some collaboration > sparking between unlike minds. >
I'm sorry you think it is partisan for new FAQ's to adopt the style of existing ones. In school we had a different word for this. We called it "editing". It would probably have been worth the effort to check the existing FAQ's before spending four hours of your evening writing in a contrasting style. Fortunately I was able to clean it up into a uniform style, add supplemental information, useful links for the reader, etc. In any case, your edits are not holy writ, and neither are mine. If there was a presumption against bold editing, then that presumption was in error. So let's have someone else take a pass, e.g., not you and not me, and see if they can improve it even further. And if your "client" has a specific question that you think is still not answered on the wiki, then please speak up. -Rob > As an added bonus you'll not have to worry about any edit locks :-) > > S.
