User talk:Jerzy/parallelepiped

If you add to this discussion, participants will be aware of it much sooner if you also edit the similarly named sections on their respective talk pages (each such section being linked as "(*)" below), e.g. by updating the edit count and/or editing-time-stamp range there.
 * 2 edits, 02:50 thru 21:15, 2005 May 7 (UTC)
 * participants: User:68.81.113.23 (tk); Jerzy (t) (*)
 * also linked from: Talk:Parallelepiped
 * general topic: Edits re volume of parallelepiped
 * implicit refs: Parallelepiped; Jerzy's changes of 06:14, 2005 May 3

If you mean to say "altitude of one of the faces, times the altitude of the parallelepiped", they try using those words. Your definition of the volume of a parallelepiped was and is incorrect, and your reverting to it was and is improper.

I guess you'll revert this admonition to something you think is better. . . [per history, User:68.81.113.23 02:50, 2005 May 7]


 * I am responding to the point about the article's content at Talk:Parallelepiped.
 * --Jerzy (t) 21:15, 2005 May 7 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, the following comments, made in light of the polcies to not bite the newcomers and to assume good intention, concern the choice of words in the contribution made on my talk page regarding my editing.
 * I see that my edit indeed changed accurate language to inaccurate, which is something that routinely happens here as a cost of our policy "Edit boldly". The revert was "improper" only in the sense that its content was inaccurate; the edit was erroneous.  But while i'm embarassed at my error, and very slightly more at  displaying it publicly, i've no regrets and insist my behavior was entirely proper (in the sense of "proper" that is appropriate to use on WP).
 * The aambiguous sentence
 * I guess you'll revert this admonition to something you think is better . ..
 * suggests (by the the use of "admonish") that you really were complaining about my editing as i did, and sounds like sarcasm with the true meaning "I assume you're too stubborn or dull-witted to admit error even to the extent of letting this critique remain visible." Ambiguity of that kind is harmful here (especially since i'm at a loss to find a equally sensible interpretation), and worth learning how to avoid, if you'll be continuting to edit here.
 * Thanks for the valuable feedback on the error, regardless of whatever else you might have intended.
 * --Jerzy (t) 21:15, 2005 May 7 (UTC)