Content deleted Content added
Moved comment by 195.93.21.104 to end of page under new heading ==Outside comments on this dispute== |
→Outside comments on this dispute: Reply to 195.93.21.104 on the substance of the dispute. Also, commented on its history. |
||
Line 147:
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.]
| |||