User talk:Juanitoeldeldemo

Hi , my name is ( Christian B. Poirier ) - ( 954-822-6681 Or 800- 660 -4153 ) Email - CBP33@Live.Com - In 1981 ( Super Bowl 15 ) I was a 21Yr Old Young Kid that was a bartender in A ( Suite with ( Bryant Gumbel Broadcasting and he put me in a Shot of me and Him , ( I was in a Tuxedo behind the Bar and he was in Front of me. How could I Possibly see this ? Sincerely. Christian B Poirier ( Please let me know. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian B Poirier (talk • contribs) 19:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Ænema[edit]

Hello, I'm Excirial. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to Ænema, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Ænema again"[edit]

Hi Excirial, it's me again, since I haven't received any response to my inquiry from last month: you reverted my contribution to the Ænema page saying that it didn’t appear constructive to you; I think my contribution was, not only constructive, but vital; the article analyzes and explains the lyrics of this song, so I put the lyrics in it, to make the article clear. It's like talking about the Mona Lisa and not putting the portrait. It's my opinion. Please undo your revert. I know there is a swear word, but there are a lot of articles that include such; I really believe the chorus of the song should be included, there are other articles which include lyrics, and my contribution was honest. I really hope I get a reply from you this time, because I feel very upset that you don't believe my contribution was constructive. Juanitoeldeldemo (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the cases where an edit summary would have been really helpful. Have a look at the diff the edit generated - while it was intended to be constructive the wording made it look identical to the usual dozen of vandalism edits that add random content / swear words in an article. A quick summary stating "Adding related song text" or something similar would have been enough for me to determine that this wasn't vandalism at all.

By the way: you don't need to ask me to revert an edit (It is done now though) - just Be bold! and simply reinstate the edit yourself and drop the editor who reverted a quick note stating you reverted it. That last step is entirely optional, but it can clear up misunderstandings regarding the edit itself. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your response. What I can use a lot from now on is your suggestion of using the edit summary (I didn't know what it was for until now). So I'm going to undo your revert, and I hope this time my contribution stays. Juanitoeldeldemo (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I could have sworn i already reverted my edit - hence me mentioning it in the previous comment. Either way, that is now done as intended an hour ago . Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]