Talk:Wannsee Conference: Difference between revisions
imported>Adam Carr No edit summary |
imported>Subpagination Bot m (Add {{subpages}} and remove checklist (details)) |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | |||
Actually, Adam, some of Paul's edits were better than your diction; others were not. Be careful never to claim ownership of an article. Another editor should be called in to resolve this matter. [[User:Thomas E Kelly|-Tom Kelly]] [[User talk:Thomas E Kelly|(Talk)]] 10:26, 25 February 2007 (CST) | Actually, Adam, some of Paul's edits were better than your diction; others were not. Be careful never to claim ownership of an article. Another editor should be called in to resolve this matter. [[User:Thomas E Kelly|-Tom Kelly]] [[User talk:Thomas E Kelly|(Talk)]] 10:26, 25 February 2007 (CST) | ||
| Line 4: | Line 6: | ||
I understand how Wikis work, Thomas. I did not claim ownership of the article, but I did and do claim ''authorship'' of it, which is a different matter. An ''author'' is entitled to have their writing treated with a certain amount of respect, at a Wiki or anywhere else. Other authors ought not to come along and change things merely on the basis that had they been the author, they would have phrased them differently. As Robert says, on that basis, every editor will have a different preference, and we will never progress the article towards completion, which the objective here at CZ, unlike at WP, where articles stay "in progress" forever. [[User:Adam Carr|Adam Carr]] 01:04, 26 February 2007 (CST) | I understand how Wikis work, Thomas. I did not claim ownership of the article, but I did and do claim ''authorship'' of it, which is a different matter. An ''author'' is entitled to have their writing treated with a certain amount of respect, at a Wiki or anywhere else. Other authors ought not to come along and change things merely on the basis that had they been the author, they would have phrased them differently. As Robert says, on that basis, every editor will have a different preference, and we will never progress the article towards completion, which the objective here at CZ, unlike at WP, where articles stay "in progress" forever. [[User:Adam Carr|Adam Carr]] 01:04, 26 February 2007 (CST) | ||
I've compared the changes in detail, and on the issue of the edits I agree with Adam. On process, I think that this needed a courteous explanation on the Talk page before any reversion, ideally leaving that to someone else or indeed to Paul, and without bulk reverting. | |||
Style is largely personal preference of course, but to explain my defence of Adam's version - | |||
the wikilinks to dates for example go nowhere and probably never will go anywhere particularly relevant, they are a distraction, will appear read, and I find the irritating. Generally we are minimising these links. | |||
On the language, I always prefer clear and simple words, reaches to echelons for example, and so would be supportive of clear natural language. [[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 05:33, 26 February 2007 (CST) | |||
OK I've made a few edits - please treat these as suggestions and revert them freely. I have edited at places where I detected awkwardness or ambiguity, and while my edits might not be better solutions, please try to see the awkwardness that prompted them.[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 05:44, 26 February 2007 (CST) | |||
I appreciate Gareth's contribution to resolving this matter. For the record, I did advise Paul Cowie on his Talk page that I was reverting his edit, and told him why. [[User:Adam Carr|Adam Carr]] 05:56, 26 February 2007 (CST) | |||
:"Advised" perhaps, but I am afraid it lacked considerably in the way of "courteously". [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 16:59, 27 February 2007 (CST) | |||
Latest revision as of 21:05, 15 November 2007
Actually, Adam, some of Paul's edits were better than your diction; others were not. Be careful never to claim ownership of an article. Another editor should be called in to resolve this matter. -Tom Kelly (Talk) 10:26, 25 February 2007 (CST)
And the other editor favors yet another style. Robert Tito | Talk 11:08, 25 February 2007 (CST)
I understand how Wikis work, Thomas. I did not claim ownership of the article, but I did and do claim authorship of it, which is a different matter. An author is entitled to have their writing treated with a certain amount of respect, at a Wiki or anywhere else. Other authors ought not to come along and change things merely on the basis that had they been the author, they would have phrased them differently. As Robert says, on that basis, every editor will have a different preference, and we will never progress the article towards completion, which the objective here at CZ, unlike at WP, where articles stay "in progress" forever. Adam Carr 01:04, 26 February 2007 (CST)
I've compared the changes in detail, and on the issue of the edits I agree with Adam. On process, I think that this needed a courteous explanation on the Talk page before any reversion, ideally leaving that to someone else or indeed to Paul, and without bulk reverting. Style is largely personal preference of course, but to explain my defence of Adam's version - the wikilinks to dates for example go nowhere and probably never will go anywhere particularly relevant, they are a distraction, will appear read, and I find the irritating. Generally we are minimising these links. On the language, I always prefer clear and simple words, reaches to echelons for example, and so would be supportive of clear natural language. Gareth Leng 05:33, 26 February 2007 (CST)
OK I've made a few edits - please treat these as suggestions and revert them freely. I have edited at places where I detected awkwardness or ambiguity, and while my edits might not be better solutions, please try to see the awkwardness that prompted them.Gareth Leng 05:44, 26 February 2007 (CST)
I appreciate Gareth's contribution to resolving this matter. For the record, I did advise Paul Cowie on his Talk page that I was reverting his edit, and told him why. Adam Carr 05:56, 26 February 2007 (CST)
- "Advised" perhaps, but I am afraid it lacked considerably in the way of "courteously". Stephen Ewen 16:59, 27 February 2007 (CST)