Talk:papyrian

This is why you don't revert

@J3133

The changes to make this the primary sense instead of papyrean weren't wrong, but then reverting your mistake I didn't see that somehow your revert included the new information I was asking you to provide. Sorry for the mixup, but—same thing—just edit the page and don't revert unless there was actually vandalism or a problem. That said, yes, I'll look next time to see if the 'revert' is actually an edit pointing out the problems in the source I was using. — LlywelynII 09:04, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

@LlywelynII: You did not revert “[my] mistake” because there was no mistake; you should not have reverted. J3133 (talk) 09:07, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

@J3133 If you had actually reverted my edit, which involved making this the primary sense instead of papyrean it would have been wrong. That's exactly the problem. I'm not sure how your edit marked the change as a revert instead of a simple edit, but whatever it was created needless confusion and animosity. It would make things easier if you don't do that. Obviously in this case, yeah, you added the cites I was asking for and the OED was wrong. I already apologized for the mixup but since you want to hear it again I'm still sorry for the mixup. — LlywelynII 09:08, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

@LlywelynII: But I did not mark my edit as a revert—I simply edited the page, thus I do not understand what it is you are referring that I “don’t do”. J3133 (talk) 09:14, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

@J3133 The history of the page marked it as a revert, which is what I saw and which would've been wrong. No, I don't know why your improvement of the page was marked that way. I assumed it was an action on your end, which led to my messages above. If it was just a glitch in the programming, we're back to just—like my thanks already showed you—we're both improving entries and keep on keeping on. — LlywelynII 09:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)