Template talk:.NET Framework version history: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 21:56, 19 February 2015

Revision as of 20:49, 24 February 2015

Line 160:

: For involving modifying this template I have experienced being blocked twice, and I try to replace it with my revision, it was reverted for more than 3 times. If you, any reader, not a stupid or woodenhead, you would find it is the most ridiculous template stating information on .net framework. All the seemed-reasonable references attached to that template is the just the confusion for its original writer about .net framework. Guys, here, Jeh, Codename Lisa and Fleetcommand are worse. I just wish there would be someone would balance the balance, not to mislead readers too much. [[User:Janagewen|Janagewen]] ([[User talk:Janagewen|talk]]) 23:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC) </s>

:: If you start labeling people "woodenhead" (whatever that means) instead of listening to them, you end up in world full of woodenheads that has no "reader" in it. Your table is horribly vague and your English language is awful. You should have gotten the hint when you were blocked the first time. {{UnsignedIP<small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/46.62.182.2|46.62.182.2]] ([[User talk:46.62.182.2|talk]]) 06:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)}}</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP -->

<s>::: I am so respectful for your reply. But have we ever both chatted on wiki? Why omitted your name here? If you are English-native speaker, then I am sorry. If not, why you use awful to describe my English skill? That takes nonsense, I think I was treated as shit for each my modification on this template has been reverted in minutes without reason. Can I call it ''discrimination''? I was treated in this way like a shit, so no matter my English skill is awful or excellent, does it take sense? The template in main article is obviously a mass, and misleads readers, especially on the description about the relationship among versions and inclusion. That is wrong! I know people passed it by and ignored, or without passion to modify it, but not say that it is correct. Yeah, I apologize for using the words "woodenhead" and "stupid", but these two words are the most suitable for people who ignore my revision and reverted my modification without consideration at all. Guy, if you are interested in this template too, I just wish you devote to making it better rather than arguing some a shit like me. [[User:Janagewen|Janagewen]] ([[User talk:Janagewen|talk]]) 07:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)</s>