Toronto Police Service and Talk:Adi Shankara: Difference between pages
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
→Outside comments on this dispute: Reply to 195.93.21.104 on the substance of the dispute. Also, commented on its history. |
||
Line 1:
==Archive==
*[[/Archive 1]]
== Bad faith edits ==
When a User reverts all my edits with no explanation but a childishly untrue claim in the edit summary that my own edit summary was inaccurate, I don't feel the need to explain my consequent revert, and I shan't in future. If anyone wants to explain what they think is wrong with my attempts to improve the article, then I'll be happy to discuss the issue. --[[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">Μελ Ετητης</font>)]] 21:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Your well aware of my objections to your watchdogging this page, we've already discussed this [[User_talk:Sam_Spade#Adi_Shankara|here]]. its seems I'm not alone in my concerns... funny, that... [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] 03:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
:You mean that you reverted my edits because you object to my having this page on my Watchlist and trying to improve it and protect it from poor edits? Well at least you're honest about your bad-faith editing, but that doesn't really make it any better. --[[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">Μελ Ετητης</font>)]] 22:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
I object to your reverts, and the reasoning for them, yes. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] 00:05, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
==
As [[User:Sam Spade|SS]] insists on reverting my edits but refuses to explain (the nearest he gets is calling them "bizarre" in his edit summary) I've asked for comments. Fresh eyes on the article would be appreciated. --[[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">Μελ Ετητης</font>)]] 22:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
:I think we're getting a little too quick on the revert trigger on the part of both parties here. Maybe both Mel and Sam could agree to try observing a variation on the [[Wikipedia:One-revert rule|one-revert rule]] for a little while; let the article sit as it is right now, and commit only non-revert edits for a while. If one of you makes an edit that the other disagrees with that you would ordinarily revert, discuss it on the talk page. Most of the edits at issue in the series of reverts I look at and think "some of these are good changes, some are debatable, and some should probably be undone". Reverts of an entire submission is too coarse a tool for dealing with these situations, particular the debatable changes. The real problem here is that edits by third parties are at risk of being inadvertantly wiped out during reverts and counterreverts (this seems to have happened in the latest edit by [[User:Imc]]). Sound sensible? --[[User:Spasemunki|Clay Collier]] 05:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Absolutely, that is my thought entirely. This all started because I saw [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adi_Shankara&diff=26218323&oldid=26103100 this revert by Mel]. As you can see from [[User_talk:Sam_Spade#Adi_Shankara]], that has been my concern all along. Also, if you notice, I have been observing the 1 rr, making no more than 1 revert every 24hrs, and I have done my best to merge in any actual improvements. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] 14:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
:Could you both please summarise the stylistic or other differences between you two here? It looks like an extremely trivial dispute. --[[User:Ravikiran r|Ravikiran]] 17:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
It is. Basically I object to Mel having reverted a generally good edit, I reverted his revert, he reverted me back, and here we are. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] 22:11, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
:I made a series of edits that I thought improved the article. SS reverted them, calling them bizarre. Since then he's refused to explain what it is about them that is bizarre, or to which he objects. I am still completely in the dark as to his reasons for revrting. Some of my edits reverted earlier edits by an anon, which I take to have replaced good style with slightly worse style. For example:
::"From a young age, Shankara was attracted to asceticism and to the life of a renunciate. His mother Aryamba was however entirely against his becoming a ''Sannyasi'', and consistently refused him her formal permission, which was required before he could take ''Sannyasam''. Once when Shankara was bathing in the river, a crocodile gripped him by the leg and began rapidly to drag him into the water."
:was changed to:
::"From a young age, Shankara was attracted to [[asceticism]] and to the life of a renunciate. However, his mother, Aryamba, was entirely against his becoming a ''Sannyasi'', and consistently refused him her formal permission, which was required before he could take ''Sannyasam''. Once when Shankara was bathing in the river, a [[crocodile]] gripped him by the leg and began to rapidly drag him into the water."
:Why SS thinks that the former is so much better as to warrant regular reverting I don't know. I don't hold that so-called split infinitives are grammatically wrong and must be avoided, but I can see no reason to insist on including one when the original text avoided it.
:The changes which I reverted also included unnecessary division of the article into smaller sections, a lot of duplicated internal links, some PoV language (e.g., I replaced "his greatest lesson" with "his main lesson"), and the addition of a section which mentions what one writer (out of very many) has said about Shankara's dates — an addition which I think is somewhat PoV, as it raises one opinion above others. I also removed a duplication in the bibliography ("The commentary on the [[Bhagavad Gita]]" appears both as book that he certainly wrote and as one that he probably wrote, but on which there's no scholarly agreement, and I organised the external links section so that links to the same sites were grouped together.
:Why is SS reverting all these and a host of other edits? I don't know; he refuses to say. The nearest he's come is to say that he opposes my watching over this article — something that Wikipedia editors do all the time (including, of course, SS himself). --[[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">Μελ Ετητης</font>)]] 23:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
I would describe that as a complete mischaracterisation, and advise any interested parties to review my statements, the links I provide, and the articles edit history. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] 01:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
:There will be a user conduct RfC is false edit summaries like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adi_Shankara&diff=27475128&oldid=27360203 this] continue to be used. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] 16:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
==Attempt to resolve dispute==
:I wonder if the two of you couldn't try to go through the items in dispute one by one and find agreement on at least some of them? For example, the first item is "Hindu [[scripture]]s" v. "[[Hindu]] [[scripture]]s"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adi_Shankara&diff=27545022&oldid=27543146]. Now, I don't have a strong opinion about this, but it seems to me that since [[Hinduism]] is hyperlinked a few lines above, and that links in turn to [[Hindu]], that might suffice. But then, that is just my opinion.
:The next item is [[Namboothiri]] v. [[Namboodiri]]. The latter redirects to the former. So, I don't understand why this is in dispute. It should be [[Namboothiri]]. The discussion of the spelling of this name should be moved to the [[Namboothiri]] talk page so that the editors of that article can participate.
:The third item is ''is'' v. ''are''. Since the subject of the sentence, "traditional source", is singular, "is" is the correct word.
:Now, I notice that I've sided with Mel on the first two items, and Sam on the third, but I would caution both of you against drawing any conclusions from this. That is just how it happened to come out. The important thing is that if you can come to an agreement on any or all of these items, maybe some of the other items can be resolved as well. Even if you can't resolve all the items, finding agreement on some would be a big help if you do have seek arbitration to resolve the balance. Thank you both for trying to improve Wikipedea and best wishes. -[[User:Wsiegmund|Walter Siegmund]] [[User_talk:Wsiegmund|(talk)]] 23:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your helpful comments. So that you know, [[Hinduism]] does not link to [[Hindu]]. [[Namboothiri]] I have no problem with, but he reverted a large number of wikilinks as well. My primary problem is his usage of a revert in these cases, which was clearly inappropriate and problematic. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] 23:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
:Sam, I appreciate very much your agreement with my opinion on the [[Namboothiri]] matter. I will proceed to make the change. I'd like to ask that Mel not revert the article to his version as long as progress in resolving the disputed items is occurring. I know that will be disagreeable to him because it is mostly Sam's version at this point, but I would be grateful for Mel's help in this regard. Now, the matter of whether [[Hinduism]] links to [[Hindu]] can be resolved, I think. The link that I found is just above the table of '''Contents''' of [[Hinduism]]: "See [[Hindu]] for more about a Hindu and different communities of Hindus." Now, I think that is bad style because it is easy to overlook. I had to search for it. I think it would be better if a place for [[Hindu]] could be found in the first two or three sentences. The wording of the sentence containing the link is bad too, because it is reminiscent of the '''See also''' section at the ends of article and breaks up the flow of the writing. But, perhaps we can agree to work with the other editors of [[Hinduism]] to improve the wording and to give [[Hindu]] more prominence. Thank you. [[User:Wsiegmund|Walter Siegmund]] [[User_talk:Wsiegmund|(talk)]] 02:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sorry, i misunderstood you at first. I thought ''you'' thought [[Hindu]] redirected to [[hinduism]] (which it once did, but no longer does). Now I see you were refering to the fact that the article [[Hinduism]] contains within it a link to [[Hindu]]. That is indeed the case, but I feel this article ([[Adi Shankara]]) ought to link to [[hindu]] as well, and indeed generally should link to a wide variety of relevant articles. I sincerely appreciate your mediations here, Walter Siegmund. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] 03:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
:Sam, I'm sorry that I wasn't clear in my previous comment. For the record, it seems to me that a reader of this article is probably already fairly knowledgeable about Hinduism and Hindus since a beginner would be unlikely to start here. On the other hand, at least one link is appropriate, just to be safe. It seems to me that Hinduism is the more relevant of the two. From Hinduism, the reader can reach Hindu, albeit with the misgivings I expressed previously. I am sure that you know of the discussions occur among editors on the extent of links. Many share your view that the links should be more extensive than less. I would summarize as follows: More links are better because who can know what link might be helpful to a future reader v. too many links make it hard for the reader to find the one that is useful or necessary, and detract from the appearance of the article. I think we should give Mel an opportunity to comment. I'm pleased that you think I've been helpful, Sam. Thank you. -[[User:Wsiegmund|Walter Siegmund]] [[User_talk:Wsiegmund|(talk)]] 04:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
==Use of links==
:First, for the record, I made the change of Namboodiri to Namboothiri before my edit above at 04:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC). Second, I want to thank Mel for not reverting the current content.
:Since the subject of links has been broached, I wonder if it wouldn't be good to try to resolve that category next, rather than item by item. A cross-wiki link to Wiktionary may be better for some of the links, but for now, I'd like to focus on only the issue of whether the word should be linked or not. Here are my thoughts.
:[[Wikipedia:Make_only_links_relevant_to_the_context#What_should_not_be_linked|What should ''not'' be linked]]
:'''Plain English words:'''
*[[crocodile]]
*[[universe]]
*[[mortality]]
*[[theistic]]
:The time, space, causation, change and eternity articles do include sections on philosophy, but it is embarrassing that the only comment on Asian thought on these matters I found was one sentence in [[Causality]]. Consequently, a reader of this article would find little of help in those. Moreover, this article does not discuss the philosophy of time, space, causation, change or eternity in any significant detail. But, I would support linking to those articles once they include significant Asian philosophical content. But, even then, the link should be to the philosophy section, not to the top of the article. I didn't find anything on philosophy or religion in [[universe]] or [[mortality]].
*[[time]]
*[[space]]
*[[causation]]
*[[change]]
*[[eternity]]
:[[Wikipedia:Make_only_links_relevant_to_the_context#What_should_be_linked|What should be linked]]
:'''Major connections with the subject of another article that will help readers to understand the current article more fully:'''
*[[Vishwanath]]
*[[Kashi]]
*[[Shiva]]
*[[Ishwara]]
*[[Manisha Panchakam]] But only if the article is written promptly.
*[[Nrsimha]]
*[[Kali]]
*[[Laksmi]]
*[[Buddhism]]
*[[South India]] Kashmir is linked, so South India or India should be linked as well (but only the first occurrence). The second is a redlink.
:'''Technical terms should be linked unless they are fully defined in the article:'''
*[[shlokas]]
*[[atman]] But only the first occurrence and it should be spelled consistently in this article (and hopefully with the referenced article as well).
*[[sacerdotalism]]
:'''Discussed earlier, see entry at 04:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC) above.'''
*[[Hindu]]
:Thank you. [[User:Wsiegmund|Walter Siegmund]] [[User_talk:Wsiegmund|(talk)]] 18:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
We don't agree philosophically regarding wikilinks, I feel more is better, and that any concivably useful link should occur at least once per section. However, you have been communicative and reasonable regarding your preference, so I am willing to accept your preference for this page, as long as Mel does not resume reversions of edits which improve the article. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] 23:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
:Sam, thank you for your spirit of cooperation and your interest in resolving disagreements through discussion. I think I summarized your position on links (and that of those who disagree with you) in my comment of 04:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC), but correct me if I'm wrong. We are fortunate, however, that the [[Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context|Style Guide section on links]] can help us resolve our differences. That is why I linked to sections of the Style Guide in my list of the links in dispute above. I thought that you and Mel might be able to discuss whether the link in question was in the correct sublist, rather than rehashing philosophical positions on links. The latter is not relevant to this discussion, in my view, and is unlikely to lead to agreement, in any case.
:Subsequent to your acceptance of the link changes that I suggested, I was disappointed to see that Mel reverted the article that you and I were working on to his version and requested that it be blocked. Further effort on my part, in the absence of participation by Mel, seems fruitless to me. Best wishes to you both. -[[User:Wsiegmund|Walter Siegmund]] [[User_talk:Wsiegmund|(talk)]] 18:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Your attempt to mediate has been noted and appreciated. Thank you very much. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] 00:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
==Article protected==
The article has been protected per the request at [[WP:RFP]]. And please don't accuse me of taking sides, Mel did not contact me and I'd have protected the [[meta:The_Wrong_Version|wrong version]] either way. Once you've resolved your differences of opinion, it can be unprotected. [[User:FeloniousMonk|FeloniousMonk]] 01:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
:LOL! What a joke, as soon as reasonable people start agreeing on what edits to make, a good friend of Mel (who has refused to participate in discussion) locks the page... shortly after Mel reverts! What a coincidence! [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] 20:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
==
I had explained to SS why I'd made the edits that I had, and he refused to discuss the issue, merely making general comments about me and the edits (mainly in edit summaries). I eventually (two days ago) asked for the page to be protected. I'm currently struggling with a particularly heavy teaching load, so I'm a couple of days behind checking on my Watchlist (I'm now at 02:06 on 8 x 05, if anyone's interested), and I missed the current discussion. I'm pleased that the intervention of a third party, Walter Siegmund, has finally brought SS to the discussion, but I'd asked for page protection before most of that discussion had taken place.
I agree with almost everything that Walter Siegmund said, and even where I don't I appreciate his calm and serious approach. I hope that he'll return to the Talk page. --[[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">Μελ Ετητης</font>)]] 22:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
== Proposal to resolve this dispute ==
Sam Spade and Mel Etitis, thank you both for your kind words about my efforts. I've been thinking about how best to proceed given that Mel Etitis has little time to devote to this discussion at present and that it is in all of our interests to unblock the article promptly so that we and others can resume our efforts to improve it. Since you both have expressed confidence in my efforts and little inclination to examine my comments one by one, I wonder if a solution along the follow lines might be acceptable?
*I will undertake to edit the disputed items consistent with my suggestions above. These have been accepted by Sam Spade and mostly agreed to by Mel Etitis.
*I will edit the items not yet discussed in a manner that seems best to me. I will give prompt consideration and response to queries posted here regarding all edits.
*Both parties will agree to not make any further change(s) to the disputed items without proposing the change(s) here for comment one week prior to making the change(s). Each agrees to make the change(s) only if a clear consensus, or no dissent, occurs.
*In the future, both parties agree to avoid criticizing one another or their actions in general terms. A well-reasoned comment on a specific edit is appropriate, however, and will be accepted as such by the recipient.
*Both parties agree not to revert the other in the future on this or any other article. But, if you edit anonymously, please don't complain if you are reverted by the other.
*Neither party is restrained by this agreement from reverting edits by third parties to this or other articles, as he sees fit, and in accordance with the policies of Wikipedia.
*Both parties agree that this is the full and final settlement of this dispute and agree not to rehash it henceforth.
*Once both parties have accepted these terms (or as modified by subsequent discussion), Mel Etitis will request the block on the article be removed so that the other items can be accomplished.
*For the record, this is the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adi_Shankara&diff=27545022&oldid=27543146| difference page] for the disputed items.
Thank you for your consideration of my proposal. -[[User:Wsiegmund|Walter Siegmund]] [[User_talk:Wsiegmund|(talk)]] 19:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
:I agree to that, unless the agreement not to revert applies to pages other than this one, and w the stipulation that Mel (and I) not revert non-vandalism edits to this page w/o prior consensus. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] 21:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Sam Spade, I'm sorry. I can't agree to your stipulation to allow reversions of each other's work under any circumstance and I've modified the language above to make this clear. I fear that to do otherwise opens the door to a transfer of this dispute to another article or a resumption of the dispute on this article. I think that the history of this dispute demonstrates that reversion is not going to resolve a dispute between you and Mel Etitis. You are not giving up a useful tool by agreeing to this provision. You are gaining an end to the vexation that his reversions have caused you. I would be very grateful if you would be kind enough to reconsider your objection to this provision. Thank you. [[User:Wsiegmund|Walter Siegmund]] [[User_talk:Wsiegmund|(talk)]] 22:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
:There's nothing in [[User:Wsiegmund|Walter Siegmund]]'s proposal to which I could reasonably object, and I agree to all parts, and thank him for the time and thought that he's put in to this. I'd rather not tie my hands with regard to edits by anyone else, though. (For example, the insistence of certain religious groups to impose their non-standard views concerning Shankara's dates don't count as vandalism, but needs to be dealt with.) --[[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">Μελ Ετητης</font>)]] 22:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Mel Etitis, thank you for your prompt reply, especially in light of your busy schedule. Nothing in my proposal should be construed as restraining either of the parties from reverting edits by third parties as he sees fit and in accordance with the policies of Wikipedia. I've added language to this effect above. Thank you for pointing out the need to explicitly address this point. [[User:Wsiegmund|Walter Siegmund]] [[User_talk:Wsiegmund|(talk)]] 22:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
:In that case I cannot agree, this entire problem is the result of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adi_Shankara&diff=26218323&oldid=26103100 a revert Mel made of an anon edit]. I don't have major edits to be making to this article, but others do. Mel cannot be allowed to stand in their way. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] 00:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
::Thank you for giving serious consideration to my proposal. I have found that fighting other people's battles is rarely rewarded or appreciated. But that is your decision. Perhaps you can understand my disinclination to put effort into resolving a dispute that seems certain to erupt again. Best wishes. [[User:Wsiegmund|Walter Siegmund]] [[User_talk:Wsiegmund|(talk)]] 02:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
::Sam Spade, you deserve a more complete response than I've given. I am sorry. I don't think your proposal that you and Mel Etitis not revert non-vandalism edits to the article without prior consensus is workable. What is and is not vandalism is a matter of judgement. I think before long you would disagree and fall back into conflict. The POV date dispute, is not [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|Vandalism]], in my opinion. If that is correct, under your proposal, a consensus would have to be obtained before each such edit could be reverted. Surely, the ensuing delay would only encourage the POV advocates. I suppose that an exception could be made for that category, but that makes deciding when to seek consensus before reverting more complex and thereby open to criticism. -[[User:Wsiegmund|Walter Siegmund]] [[User_talk:Wsiegmund|(talk)]] 04:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't like seeing Mel revert good edits. That is the root of our conflict here. I am agreeable w things that make that stop happening. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] 03:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
==Outside comments on this dispute==
I don't understand. I can't find any differences of opinion, only some relatively dubious grammatical 'correction'. Is there really any difference in substance between the two supposedly alternative articles?
{{unsigned|195.93.21.104|09:06, 13 November 2005 }}
:Editing disputes often seem to be about rather minor matters when viewed by others. However, it is important to know that the editors of an article often care a great deal about the subject and the content of the article, e.g., [[Chimera]] and [[Circumcision]]. I found the following differences (parties correct me as necessary):
* grammar, especially the use of split infinitives.
* spelling/upper & lower case (always a problem when transliterating between two languages).
* extent of word-linking.
* the number of sections.
* one item in the biography list.
* wording described as somewhat POV.
* inclusion of a reference described as somewhat POV.
:I think that the progress made above suggests that it is possible to resolve these matters. Unfortunately, they do not seem to be at the root of this dispute. Sam Spade states, "... this entire problem is the result of a revert Mel made of an anon edit. I don't have major edits to be making to this article, but others do. Mel cannot be allowed to stand in their way." Also, "I don't like seeing Mel revert good edits. That is the root of our conflict here. I am agreeable w things that make that stop happening." [Talk:Adi_Shankara#Proposal_to_resolve_this_dispute]
:When I thought this dispute was about content, I resisted commenting on its history. (Rehashing the past is not a good way to move forward.) At this point, however, a short comment may be in order. I think [[WP:AGF|AGF]] might have helped. Suppose Sam Spade had assumed that Mel Etitis had overlooked the good points in the edit in question and that he would appreciate a kind and thoughtful note on his talk page to that effect. Something like the following might have been appropriate:
...
Regarding your reversion of the edits of 129.79.205.132 on [[Adi Shankara]], I think you may have overlooked certain positive aspects of those edits.
* An extra parenthesis was deleted in the first line. It is easy to miss, but surely a good thing.
* South was made lower case in keeping with my reading of the [[WP:MoS|MoS]] on directions. Am I misinterpreting the MoS here? I notice that [[South India]] exists. Perhaps that link should be substituted here.
* I wonder if the variant spelling of keraliya might be kept parenthetically, at least until the redlink article is stubbed and it can be debated there?
* Perhaps one or two of the grammar edits could be retained on the principle of [[WP:bite|encouraging newcomers]]?
Thank you for considering these items and for your efforts fighting vandals.
Best wishes, ...
:I think Mel Etitis may have responded in a manner more to your liking to such an approach. I think it is important to keep in mind the saying, "You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar."
:In conclusion, I don't know how, short of an indefinite block, to prevent an editor from reverting good, or bad, edits. All you can do is try to persuade the editor of your opinion of a particular edit. If you make a good case, most editors will either agree with you or try to reach an acceptable compromise. If not, you may have made the editor more receptive to the edit and you may persuade third parties. In either event, if you move on, you can improve some of the other 800,000 articles that need your attention. The anonymous editor, 129.79.205.132, has done that and has been complemented on his/her [[User talk:129.79.205.132|talk page]] on the quality of his/her contributions.
I hope that those reading my comments will not see them as one-sided. Although I have directed most of my comments toward Sam Spade, I have criticized the reversion of Mel Etitis in my example of how Sam Spade might have handled the dispute differently.
:Best wishes, [[User:Wsiegmund|Walter Siegmund]] [[User_talk:Wsiegmund|(talk)]] 23:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adi_Shankara&diff=26218323&oldid=26103100 The anonymous edit at the root of this dispute.]
| |||