User talk:ConradS

Talk page usage
Conrad, regarding this edit to my user talk page:
 * 1) If you wish to communicate with, do so on her user talk page, not mine.
 * 2) Please log in before making any more edits: registered users editing while not logged in give the appearance of trying to avoid having their comments traced back to them.  Not what you're doing, I know, but it's better to log in so we can know it's you we're talking to.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi. The place of discussing articles is on the article talk page, not a user page. I've started a discussion in Talk:Office 365 already. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Your first contribution
Hello, Conrad

How do you do?

So... you've made your first contribution to Wikipedia and are not very satisfied with the aftermath, are you? Please allow me to clarify something: In Wikipedia, everyone loves you. (Yes, that's right!) Your contribution, however, is unlikely to gain unanimous acceptance no matter how perfect it is. So, please do not make the mistake of thinking he who doesn't like your edit hates you. If you do, you will be either emotionally unable to contact the editor of your contribution, or your communication would be a mere quarrel. In both case, you will miss the extremely pleasant experience of teamwork. (How do you think Wikipedia has reached this magnitude when people disagree with each other on virtually everything? People enjoy settling disputes!) Our method of settling the disputes is called the "Bold, revert, discuss cycle" or B.R.D. for short. A contributor performs a bold contribution. A reviewer who finds it unacceptable reverts it. Then, they discuss and resolve their dispute... and enjoy doing so.

Now, as you perhaps know correctly, I have a very low opinion of your contribution to Office 365. You basically reinvented the wheel by doing an unnecessary rewrite and in doing so, you deleted information on four consumer plans of Office 365 while the net amount change necessary to the existing article of the time was very small. Furthermore, your assertion of the article being as outdated as 2011 is outright false; the article was last updated on 17 July 2014. But your worst mistake was in not contacting me immediately. You missed all the fun we could have together in settling the dispute.

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)