I Don't understand your edit summary "avoiding the appearance of shelfishness" for a spelling edit clams-> claims [1]--E-Bod 19:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I Don't understand your edit summary "avoiding the appearance of shelfishness" for a spelling edit clams-> claims [2]--E-Bod 19:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I changed clam to claim. Clams are shelfish. Regards. Midgley 19:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. LOL :D I didn’t get the joke I thought you said Selfishness when you really said shellfish-ness (like what I said was self righteous or overly critical or coming from as selfish POV) Thanks fror clarifying. It’s nice to have a joke hear and there.--E-Bod 19:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any summaries that say "he's a nettlesome, argumentative user intent on ensuring that his incorrect information replaces accurate information", probably because plain talk is too often construed as an attack, even in an RFC. I do think I can endorse the complaint. It would be nice to have scientific articles a hospitable place to edit once more. Just out of curiousity, what's a "cod signature"? - Nunh-huh 00:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's my "something new I learned today" then. Though a fake fax would qualify as fraudulent in my book<g>. I'm guessing it's because it's "fishy"? - Nunh-huh 00:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LOL again. I think Nunh-huh is talking about an RFC summary. I was talking about an Edit summary[3]. This is a seprat issue--E-Bod 01:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, I didn't make a new subject heading. I wasn't thinking anyone else would be reading<g>. - 01:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
My fishy day yesterday. Midgley 09:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
