Talk:Li Hewen

message: Article says, "he reached the quarter-finals, eventually eliminated by winner Ronato Alcano in the semi-finals".  So, was he bumped out in the semi-finals or the quarter-finals? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SportsAddicted, simply reverting the changes doesn't make the issue go away.  Either Li made it to the semi-finals, or he only made it to the quarter-finals.  Which is it?  Also, please do not blindly mass-revert good faith edits.  You removed a link to an important article, removed a standard "year" wikilink, made a sentence make even less sense ("owned"? huh?) than it did before I worked on it, and restored the broken logic flow of the original, in which one sentence is talking about this tournament, then moves on to talking about the next year, then the next sentence jarringly jumps back to talking about this year's event.  I fixed all of that, and do not understand why you would revert them without a word.  It seems out of character too; most of your edits seem well thought out from what I've seen of your contributions around here.  And removing a dispute tag like  without addressing or even discussing the dispute is a bit of a no-no.  <puzzled>  — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not that I was simply reverting your edits and/or notification. I was clarifying the situation on Li who reached the semi finals where he was beatean by Alcano, which you can see at the 2006 WPA Men's World Nine-ball Championship article. The fact that he reached the quarter final in this tournament meant that he secured (owned was a wrong word, but English is not my native language, so excuse me for that) a place in the 2007 edition, like all the others who reached the quarter finals. I changed that, if it can be done in better wording, please do so, but please don't blame me for simply reverting and moving a tag, because that was not the case. SportsAddicted | discuss 02:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I follow you; will go look at it again.  PS: Wasn't meant to sound "blaming", more "mystified", since as I said your edits generally do make sense to me. :-)  — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Right, it does make sense now, and I think I'll need to go back to 2 or 3 other articles in the same category and self-revert and make conforming changes that match this one.  PS: I want to restore the wikilink that goes to the broader article (done actually); the word "edition" by itself is a bit ambiguous ("of what", one asks, and linking to the article about the "what" gets rid of the question before it even arises.  Alright? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: PS: An alternative might be "the 2007 event", if it's the exact wording "2007 edition of the tournament" is bothering you.  I'm more concerned that the link to the overall article about the nature of the event be in there somewhere, whatever the wording is.  In fact I think I lean toward preferring this alternate wording already... — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: PPS: Needless to say, when we have an article about the 2007 event, that would change to "the 2007 event" in such articles. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problems here really. I thought your first comment might been a bit harsh, but that might also been because I was surprised by the fact that you reverted me. We both have the same goal, but apparently we had a different view on it. I agree the link towards the general article about the event makes sense, I didn't even notice you included that, just like the year link. It's probably because adding/deleting the contradict tag made everything red instead of just the changed parts. Anyways, glad this is solved, cheers. SportsAddicted | discuss 09:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's weird; it shouldn't all be red.  I don't get results like that.  What OS & browser are you using?  If this can be tracked down, it's a good Village Pump bug report. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 16:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: PS: Can't duplicate the problem so far in Safari browser, MacOS X.  When I added the Contradict tag back in and did a diff, the one-line change was highlighted (in green).  I am not running with previews on in diff mode; if you where, maybe that's what you were seeing, in which case, trust the side-by-side diff list more than the preview henceforth.  :-)  — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 16:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No it's not a bug, just common wiki style. Check this edit, where you added the contradiction tag to the article. You also changed something in the text of the article itself, but it's hardly able to see as it's not highlighted because at one side everything is red while at the other side everything is black. This is just because of the addition of the tag, which makes the actual article text drop a line down. That was what I was talking about :) Due to this I did not even look at changes inside the text as I was assuming you only added the tag. Hope this makes sense. SportsAddicted | discuss 20:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right! — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great :) Problem solved. SportsAddicted | discuss 23:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradiction