TheOldJacobite

Joined 1 September 2007

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SineBot (talk | contribs) at 13:01, 11 September 2018 (Signing comment by Colin Rowat - "asked for reconsideration of my edit"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Latest comment: 6 years ago by Colin Rowat in topic Reversion of my edit

Burroughs

Hi -- I think you made a pretty obviously bad call on the Burroughs article. The wording I used reflects the little that we know for certain from the sources, whereas the wording you reverted it to is contradicted by both the historical record (admittedly nebulous) and by the article itself. We can get into it in more detail if you like, but I'd like to start off by just inviting you to reconsider. Thanks. Franciscrot (talk) 18:01, 21 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Please come back soon!

Hi TOJ, we'll sorely miss you while you are gone, and I hope you come back well rested after a while. You are a tireless and very valued member of the Wikipedia community, especially when it comes to film articles and so forth. Be well and take care of yourself and do what you need to do to be happy and at peace. Much love, Softlavender (talk) 20:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)Reply


Reversion of my edit

Hey, just wanted to touch base and ask why you reverted my edit on the Stripes. What makes you think Stillman ordered the mortor to be fired to impress a colonel? Having just seen the movie myself on television, that didn't seem to be the case to me. Thanks! Sephiroth9611 (talk) 16:47, 22 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Reversion of my edit

In April, I'd made a minor edit to the page on the film The Insider (837427540), after being confused by a reference to B&W. My confusion arose because both the 60 Minutes journalists (Bergman and Wallace) and the tobacco company (Brown & Williamson) could be referred to as B&W, and the first use of the abbreviation was unclear: "B&W later coerce Wigand into a more restrictive agreement". Was this a reference to unprofessional practices by the 60 Minutes journalists, or by the tobacco company? Would you consider permitting my edit: yes, it's unnecessary in a strict sense (re-reading the article a couple of times allowed me to work out what B&W referred to), but would have helped me understand the article more quickly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin Rowat (talkcontribs) 13:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC)Reply