User talk:Avey1984

Editing mistake

Ehm, was it intended to revert the previous edits? — xZise [talk] 04:08, 15 October 2013 (CDT)

No it was not intended to revert. My edit was an attempt to make the words of the tutorial more exact and concise. However it seems my attempt, although well intended, wasn't able to meet your standards. I do apologize for this. It was all done with only good intentions. In the future I will refrain from edits to ensure I make no mistakes. I will only rectify obvious/blatant errors, and stick to only sysop related tasks (e.g. moving, deleting, spam, etc). - Avey1984 05:03, 16 October 2013 (CDT)

Wohoho. I didn't wanted to scare you away. It's simply that the edit is mostly a revert, except for the parenthesis plural (though I changed it later so your change isn't visible). And what is strange, that parts of the revert weren't an improvement:

• The SAS doesn't control your linear movements. Somebody accidentally added it but fixed it later after the person was notified.
• Why don't link to the parachute article? The section in the parts article doesn't provide more information.

Now it is debatable if the anchor link to the science modules should be hidden. And the sentences about dampening/locking mode are equivalent (personally). Now mistakes happen and this was one of it. This isn't really a problem and I only wanted to know your intentions behind the edit. And for example I have nothing to say against the later changes you did. — xZise [talk] 18:38, 16 October 2013 (CDT)