Thread:SvmErgoMonstro/@comment-4347542-20130426030752/@comment-7404610-20130426135545

Had the original contribution of the table been made by a logged-in editor, I would have gone to that person's talk and discussed it with them, as I did when Namj13 re-reverted with a name attached. When an anonymous "contribution" is made that I believe is non-productive, I feel that "lazily" reverting it is entirely appropriate. And if I'm a "prick" for disregarding the work the anonymous person did, what are he and Namj13 for "lazily" re-reverting MY work to consolidate redundant sections?

Originally there were three separate sections for Gold, Silver, and Bronze with 80%+ repeated verbiage. I worked the article over combining them into something that provides the same info, while just taking up about 40% of the space, only to see this table undo that work.

If the admin. consensus is that a table somehow invariably looks more "professional" than a list of bullets, then I have some ideas on how a table can be used without the repeated wording. But I'm not going to waste my time doing it just to be summarily dismissed as a "prick".

---

I don't even really mind so much being called a prick, if it's done to my face, where I can confront the person who calls me names and we can discuss my alleged "prick" behavior. As I was not monitoring the thread about some quiz thing, I had no idea any discussion about a table for Medals was even being held.

SvmErgoMonstro (talk) 13:55, April 26, 2013 (UTC)