Content deleted Content added
HouseBlaster (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 20:
:::::Before you start trying to assume what my way of thinking is, I still contend that your changes were not an improvement, and others share that view. What does this mean?: {{tq|In which case, how does ceding control of a key landing page to an opaque group of unknown off-wiki 'experts' improve the encyclopedia?}} What page are you referring to? Part of the problems experienced at NPP are from users being accorded rights with little care. What we are attempting to here is is twofold: inform new users in a new way (for Wikipedia) without exposing them to walls of policy text, and lightening the workload at NPP. Either you are a partner in that goal or you are not; this is part of the wider scheme to improve a few things that you've chosen not to participate in - coming here and ripping everything apart without a discussion after the project is finished and published is not very friendly either. You couldn't even be bothered to sign [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Coordination/2022 WMF letter|this]] or follow the discussions or even participate in the video conference about it with the WMF]]. Either participate or you are on the wrong project entirely and abusing [[WP:CIVIL|this policy]] - since you are so keen to evoke policies.[[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 01:28, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
::::::{{ping|Kudpung}} You're veering wildly off-topic here. I didn't sign the letter because I didn't agree with it, not because I "couldn't be bothered", and I didn't know anything about any off-wiki discussions or video conferences with WMF bigwigs. But what on earth does that have to do with editing this page? People don't have to get your approval or join your club in order to edit help pages. And if you think straightforward edits to improve the readability of text is {{tq|ripping everything apart}} you really do need to get a grip. – [[User:Joe Roe|Joe]] <small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 05:37, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
::::::[[User:Kudpung|Kudpung]], respectfully, not all of us are retired IRL and can attend Wikipedia meetings at all times of day. Not attending the video conference can be for a laundry list of reasons, most of which have nothing to do with one's dedication to NPP. I love to work towards improving NPP, but Wikipedia always has to take a backseat to real life. I did, however, sign the letter.<br/>I wrote {{tq|In which case, how does ceding control of a key landing page to an opaque group of unknown off-wiki 'experts' improve the encyclopedia?}}, not Joe. What I was trying to say: looking at this talk page and the archive, I cannot see the discussion you referred to when you said {{tq|The text on the page is not some random one-draft writing. '''It was discussed''' by several users and linguists with experience in UX and writing instructions for readers including non-native English users}} (emphasis mine). Therefore, I concluded that the discussion occurred off-wiki—where else would it take place besides this talk page? If it was in fact on wiki, I would be grateful if you could pass along a courtesy link to the discussion. {{tq|[I]mprove the encyclopedia}} comes from [[WP:IAR]]: I was asking how ignoring [[WP:OWN]] would improve the encyclopedia. <br/>I am also going to reply to [[Special:Diff/1120677800/1121035207|the comment you left on my UTP]]. I know full well what you have done for NPP. I am grateful for what you have done, truly. This is not a new position I have because have different views wrt this article. I [[Special:Diff/1114879999|said so]] a month ago. That being said, it does not particularly matter who came up with the idea for this page or for the letter. OWNership does not have to come from the article creator. Again, '''I do not think you are/were acting in bad faith'''. To the contrary, as I said in my previous message, I know you are acting in good faith, no assumption required. I believe that you have a vision for how this page should look, and are trying to make that a reality. However, on Wikipedia, it is not our opinions as individuals that matter. It is what we agree on. Those of us who have not spent a decade improving NPP have potentially useful suggestions to improve this page. Insisting we keep the page as it is until an unspecified time in the future is OWNership ({{tq|However, this system is so new (only hours old) that it would be a presumption to suggest it needs changes already. I would wait until it has been in operation for a while and let the affected page creators speak for themselves. If they suggest the page has not been very helpful, then it can be improved}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Help_talk:Unreviewed_new_page&diff=1120657833&oldid=1120654006]). I was trying to say '''gently''' that I believed you were exhibiting OWNership behavior, in the hopes that you would take the trout and we could all move on. Polite, constructive criticism is not a personal attack. None of us are perfect. We all make mistakes on-wiki. Even those of us who have been here forever (not that I am one of them).<br/>It is completely up to you how much you edit Wikipedia. [[WP:VOLUNTEER|We are all volunteers]]. You can retire at any time. I hope you choose to stay, but it is not my decision. In any event, I wish you the best for your future, regardless of how much time you spend editing Wikipedia.<span id="HouseBlaster:1668282566262:Help_talkFTTCLNUnreviewed_new_page" class="FTTCmt"> [[User:HouseBlaster|House]][[Special:Contributions/HouseBlaster|Blaster]]<sup>[[User talk:HouseBlaster|talk]]</sup> 19:49, 12 November 2022 (UTC)</span>
:{{ping|MB}} You have reverted me [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Help:Unreviewed_new_page&diff=1121014624&oldid=1120857464 again], with no explanation of what you object to. Nor is {{tq|not an improvement}} a constructive rationale that anyone can work with, {{ping|Kudpung}}. I've asked you both several times what it is you object to and when you've told me I've self-reverted those changes pending discussion (so no, I am not restoring my "preferred version"). You cannot simply [[WP:OWNBEHAVIOR|obstruct changes because you haven't approved them]]. There must be ''discussion'' for there to be consensus. So one more time, can you please tell me what it is you don't like about this edit, or do I have to take this to a noticeboard? – [[User:Joe Roe|Joe]] <small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 05:31, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
::It's already been explained. You did not get consensus to make your changes in the first place. It is up to you to get consensus for your changes, not me to get consensus to remove them. [[User:MB|<b style="color:#034503">MB</b>]] 05:35, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Line 27:
:::::[[Copy editing]] is generally understood as rewriting text to improve its readability without substantially changing its meaning. That is what I did. I'm sorry if you found the edit summary misleading, but what am I supposed to do about that now, three days and four reverts later? I will try to rephrase my question again: what changes would I have to make, for you to be happy with the edit you have chosen to revert? – [[User:Joe Roe|Joe]] <small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 06:08, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
::::::You quoted the broad introductory sentence from an article, but seem to have ignored my quote from the same article which put limitations on that - {{tq|simple revisions ... [not] rewrite a text line by line}} which I believe is aligned with the interpretation of copyediting held by the majority of the community. If I write "the author has written half a dozen books" and you change it to "the author has written six books", that is just a different way of saying the same thing. It is a stylistic change. Both are correct, you may think your way improves readability, but that would be just your opinion. If a such a stylistic change is disputed, the original version stands unless you can get a consensus to change it. You have provided no justification to make any changes, other than you seem to like your version better. {{noping|Pppery}} saw one small area to improve and made a minor change. {{noping|HouseBlaster}} has one specific concern which we are discussing, and said in general "It looks fabulous! " (that is in the archive if you don't believe me). Neither of them has called for a large rewrite. No one here agrees with you. This is really becoming [[WP:Disruptive]]. I wish you would drop this and [[WP:Listen|move on.]] [[User:MB|<b style="color:#034503">MB</b>]] 19:21, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
::::::Put in a nutshell, copy editors do not rewrite an author's work just because they don't like his/her style. Caution should be exercised before citing [[Copy editing]] without first reading the page. For one thing, copy editors are not necessarily subject experts. The NPP ''regulars'' work as a team and share the same goals for Wikipedia, the same as other work groups for any part of Wikipedia. As far as I can see, there is more than sufficient local consensus here that major changes to the text are not required. Any suggestions should be possible without incivility and personal attacks. The page is already better than it was before, because before it there was no page - and MB's idea that we have all adopted and improved together before publication is a huge contrast to the usual walls of policy and blue text new users are forced to swallow immediately. The new NPP coordinators and regulars are aware of recent new challenges of reviewing pages and with the WMF's collaboration, they are doing something about it. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 03:56, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::::Are you two seriously resorting to debating the definition of 'copy edit'? We are talking about simple changes to improve cohesion, sentence flow and remove idiosyncratic phrasing. The only thing you don't like about this edit is that I made it, and it is pathetic. – [[User:Joe Roe|Joe]] <small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 04:28, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
| |||