Archives ( Index)

2023/June 2023/July 2023/August 2023/October 2023/December 2024/January 2024/February

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

George Galloway: No IT'S NOT an enormous change! Ledes should be short and succinct. I made it so, and put in a subheading that was already there (hidden in grey).The original lede, which you presumptuously reverted, is overlong and badly written. For instance, how stupid for someone to have written, "George Galloway ... has served as Member of Parliament (MP) for Rochdale since the 2024 by-election". He'd only "served" a matter of days! And you have reinstated the duplicate statement "Galloway was born in Dundee, Scotland". Like any other bona-fide (and experienced) editor, unless one can show an edit to be entirely wrongheaded, one should either let it be or amend it. Reverting is the last resort of a scoundrel, and it is a tiresome and pious thing to do. Arrivisto ( talk) 11:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Arrivisto, the tone and substance within everything you have written about your edits – both here and in your edit-summaries – are regrettable. You deleted longstanding (years-old) paragraphs within the article's lede, described the subject as a 'controversialist' (with no source) and an 'orator' (meaningless and unnecessary), pointlessly changed the wording of the sentence about the subject's recent election (despite "has served as X since Y" being the standard for politicians' articles), and came to my own talk page to complain to and insult me, rather than to the article's talk page to have a discussion.

You wrote that, "Like any other bona-fide (and experienced) editor, unless one can show an edit to be entirely wrongheaded, one should either let it be or amend it. Reverting is the last resort of a a scoundrel, and it is atiresome and pious thing to do." With this sentence, you insulted me as a "scoundrel", and misconstrued Wikipedia policy. You showed a clear misunderstanding of the purpose of the 'undo' function, and of that it is your responsibility to prove that your edit ought to be included, should other editors take issue with it. It is not the responsibility of others to prove that your edit ought not to be included.

You simply barged on to the article, deleted three paragraphs (presumably you thought that they were not important, or you did not read them at all) and replaced the lede with a single paragraph that constituted little more than news about the subject's recent election. Per WP:LEDE, "In Wikipedia, the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents". Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. With your edit, you entirely removed the summaries of the subject's role in an international political scandal in the 2000s, and of the subject's high-profile expulsion from his political party within that same decade.

Should you reply to me, be polite, and refrain from throwing insults; otherwise I shall have to report you at the incidents noticeboard. Asperthrow ( talk) 18:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply

"You ... barged on to the article, deleted three paragraphs ... ". I don't think I did. I simply sub-edited the lede and added a paragraph title to effectively shorten the it. I have looked at the article's history and I see no evidence of my having deleted any paragraph. If I had accidentally done so, I would say "mea culpa" and happily accept criticism; and if you could show where I "deleted 3 paragraphs" I would be pleased to respond.

Perhaps I was less than courteous, for which I apoligise; but it gets my goat when editors do kneejerk reversions instead of considering whether there is virtue in the edit thus reverted. I am not a vandal, I enjoy WP editing, but I do find some editors can get holier than thou.

You write that I "described the subject as a 'controversialist' (with no source) and an 'orator' (meaningless and unnecessary)". Of course he is a controversialist; that's what he does! Of course he is an orator too (and a very impressive, and controversial one to boot).

By the way, I DO discuss proposed edits on talk-pages, but when I am essentially sub-editing, helping to reduce overlong ledes (the curse of WP) it isn't really appropriate.

"...otherwise I shall have to report you". FFS!! We're all doing our best and enjoying trying to improve the greatest website on the net. So a little less of the schoolma'am would be welcome.

Best wishes, and happy editing! Arrivisto ( talk) 21:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply

This is where you deleted three paragraphs. If this was done by mistake, that is fine. "Of course he is" is not a source; it is an opinion, and therefore WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. Do not describe him as a controversialist unless you can find that description in multiple reliable sources. Galloway is a politician; frankly any politician could be described as a controversialist. Even if Galloway were to make it clear that his sole intent in life was to be controversial, I doubt that we would refer to him as such on the article. He is no more of a 'controversialist' than Niccolò Machiavelli, Adolf Hitler, or Jesus. Asperthrow ( talk) 23:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply

"This is where you deleted three paragraphs." I think that you have made a mistake. If you go to that page, my first ever edit on Galloway, there would have been a large minus number to indicate the mass deletions. In fact, there was a small addition of text. Please have a look & check. Arrivisto ( talk)

Hi, I note that you still have not acknowledged that you were mistaken to charge me with "deleting three pargraphs". The history of the Galloway page clearly shows that while I did some editing (which you and another objected to, and which I have accepted with good grace) and some sub-editing, I DID NOT DELETE THREE PARAGRAPHS. A response and a correction would be appreciated. Thanks in anticipation! Arrivisto ( talk) 19:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{ Ctopics/aware}} template.

Please have a look also at the information at this page, which appears every time you edit J. K. Rowling. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 12:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply