Fragment of a discussion from User talk:Rua
Jump to: navigation, search

We're not just talking about any language here. I know you're well versed on the subject, so you know we really only have three sources of Old Dutch, the Leiden Willeram, the Wachtendonck Psalms and the Rhinelandic Rhyming Bible, and all of them are intertwined with OHG. That being the case, it's only wise to err on the side of caution when calling any Old Dutch term attested, just as it is to reconstruct a term.

18:55, 25 April 2013

Why do you have such a problem with linking to attested terms? Rather than erring on the side of caution, why not err on the side of what's actually correct? Saying something is reconstructed when it's not is no better than the opposite.

18:57, 25 April 2013

I disagree, but honestly, it's not such an issue for me -- I can let it be. What I had issue with is what I wrote to you about, which is undoing my revisions on mass without even bothering to message me. You've done this on several occasions now, and I find it very aggravating, and believe an administrator should demonstrate more tact.

19:11, 25 April 2013

It's pretty standard practice on Wiktionary to undo edits that you think are bad. You can ask User:SemperBlotto about that. On the other hand, it's common courtesy to discuss and form a consensus, before re-applying your changes after they were undone.

19:14, 25 April 2013

At some point, you need to take responsibility for your actions, instead of denying them.

19:20, 25 April 2013

I am taking responsibility for my actions, I'm following standard practice. You're the one who's trying to go against that.

19:21, 25 April 2013

It's a shame you feel that way.

19:23, 25 April 2013

Well, if you had apologised for being so rude earlier, I might have been a little more forthcoming. But I guess that's the way things go, miss.

19:24, 25 April 2013