| Revision as of 19:37, 19 April 2008 editNick Levinson (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,605 edits →Spelling canvass: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:56, 19 April 2008 edit undoNick Levinson (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,605 edits →Book deletion; adding back: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| ] (]) 19:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC) | ] (]) 19:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC) | ||
| == Book deletion; adding back == | |||
| I didn't see why the section about Dana Fisher's book was deleted. I restored part, mainly a part I'm familiar with, including the citation. I didn't restore the rest, in case it was the author of the Misplaced Pages content who took it out, but maybe all of it should be put back. I hope no one's deleting content just because FFPIR doesn't feel praised by it. I notice the party who took it out was identified only by an IP and didn't mention it in the edit summary or in Talk. If deletion was because of the no-point-of-view rule, too much was deleted. | |||
| ] (]) 19:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:56, 19 April 2008
Reference 3 is the same as 2, until I go to edit the article, where they seem different. I'm not clear how to edit references and referents or, in this case, whether I should, so I didn't. Could someone please take a look? Thanx.
Nick Levinson (talk) 21:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Spelling canvass
The preferred spelling for the cloth is canvas; preferred for going around a neighborhood is canvass, according to Merriam-Webster's Third New International Dictionary, a primary-source authority for U.S. English (the U.S. being where FFPIR is located).
Nick Levinson (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Book deletion; adding back
I didn't see why the section about Dana Fisher's book was deleted. I restored part, mainly a part I'm familiar with, including the citation. I didn't restore the rest, in case it was the author of the Misplaced Pages content who took it out, but maybe all of it should be put back. I hope no one's deleting content just because FFPIR doesn't feel praised by it. I notice the party who took it out was identified only by an IP and didn't mention it in the edit summary or in Talk. If deletion was because of the no-point-of-view rule, too much was deleted.