This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Venezuela, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Venezuela on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VenezuelaWikipedia:WikiProject VenezuelaTemplate:WikiProject VenezuelaVenezuela articles
Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Yesterday there were several reverts on the page, with remarks that seem a bit testy but without a clear explanation. Would someone like to present an argument for why one version is wrong or how the other is better? Jim.henderson (talk) 11:58, 26 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Jim.henderson: It was my fault. I didn't understand the correction, which was fixing a mistake I made. I overreacted. -- BrillLyle (talk) 05:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
Heh. Reminds me of what I did years ago in Newtown Creek Wastewater, umm, do I really want to be reminded? Anyway, it taught me a couple lessons namely: 1) Don't let on that we've noticed we're dealing with fools, especially since 2) Fools are sometimes completely right about the matter in dispute, even if they are disputing stupidly. Jim.henderson (talk) 02:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
.svg){kind=small}
