Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:02, 1 October 2014

Reverted changes

These changes both feel a bit pointy and misunderstand what copyright cleanup is all about. I have reverted them. --Moonriddengirl 11:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Surely it is not controversial for a best-practices page of a wiki project to wl link to a wp policy or to mention paraphrasing and quotation in a list of options in a how-to for addressing possible cv clean-up. May I ask again, going forward that you consider collaborating on edits rather than reverting and please provide more informative edit summaries than for example "no." Hugh (talk) 16:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm very happy to collaborate on edits, but this involves conversation, where edits are likely to be controversial. The policy you'd like to link here says, "Discussion is, however, called for if you think the edit might be controversial or if someone indicates disagreement with your edit (either by reverting your edit and/or raising an issue on the talk page)." It would be far better to agree on language before continuing to insert controversial changes.

The passage have you have readded against my objections is problematic in several ways. First, the current structure of the bullet is "image / text." Your addition makes it "text / image / text", and the text recommendations are redundant to the text recommendations already in the page. If you want to add links, it would make much more sense to incorporate it into the sentence further down: "If copyright violating text can be easily removed or replaced with newly written language, you're welcome to rewrite it." Additionally, what you're adding is a sentence fragment: "For example, by paraphrasing text or introducing a quotation."

In terms of this, I realize that you are unhappy with the way another editor proceeded in opening a CCI on you, but I will vigorously resist any effort to change this page or any other without consensus to suggest that editor development and communication are not important. Removing copyright is imperative - and advance notice is not required for doing so - but "assisting contributors who do not understand copyright policies" is one of the core purposes of this project, from its inception, and your bad experience does not lend me to want to see that watered down. --Moonriddengirl 16:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

It's disappointing that discussion is not happening here as it is supposed to. Again, "Discussion is, however, called for if you think the edit might be controversial or if someone indicates disagreement with your edit (either by reverting your edit and/or raising an issue on the talk page)." I disagree with your changes here. "Please be sure" has nothing to do with what is "mandatory". It feels to me as though you are continuing to try to discourage proper communication between contributor. --Moonriddengirl 23:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback on recent edits. Thank you for your commitment to the completeness, accuracy, and clarity of the copyright clean-up best practices documentation. Thank you for not reverting without discussion, I appreciate that. I was not aware of such processes until recently, and, upon reading them over, found them to lack clarity so as to be misleading. I look forward to collaborating with you further on improving the completeness, accuracy, and clarity of the copyright clean-up best practices documentation so that it may be more transparent to future readers and accurately reflect actual practices. Going forward may we please refrain from speculating as to motives, thanks. Hugh (talk) 23:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

"Notice is not open enough" in a recent revert summary. What do you mean by this, "open"? Notice is more precise. Notice after the fact of clean-up activities is exactly all that is required. So let's say that. Hugh (talk) 00:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

ok, after pondering let me see if I understand what you mean by "not open enough," correct me if I'm wrong. You hope, through a judicious word choice, like "speak to" to encourage readers to exceed the minimum, in other words, "open enough" to admit to our better natures; in fact you hope thru obscuring the min to discourage it. Well, I think that's ambitious, a lot to convey thru any 1 word. We have multiple audiences, at least 2 of which are those considering taking up cv clean-up, and those trying to figure out what just hit them, and the written description of the process has to be fair to both. Further, it's not fair to those cited for possible cv violations to read a procedure that is all warm & fuzzy & gf & collaborative & dialog & please this & should that, when that's not the case in practice, when what they are really after is wait, can this be for real? Unfortunately, there will always be some editors who will look to do the absolute min, and when they do, the collateral damaged are going to want straight talk about what's legit and what's over the line. We have to explain both the min practice and the best practice, and if we think the min is too low should work together to change it, not hide it. Hugh (talk) 03:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

pondering further, if I understand you, by trying to at least be open to speaking in the sense of dialog in cv clean-up, it seems maybe we are in agreement it's generally to be preferred to post hoc notification, no? Hugh (talk) 20:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

You say "it's not fair to those cited for possible cv violations to read a procedure that is all warm & fuzzy & gf & collaborative & dialog & please this & should that, when that's not the case in practice". Because people may be hurt or puzzled that they were not treated with "warm & fuzzy & gf & collaborative & dialog" is hardly reason to encourage copyright cleaners not to treat people with "warm & fuzzy & gf & collaborative & dialog". That's not about hiding the minimum behavior; it's about encouraging people to behave correctly. This is not a guideline or a policy; it is, again, the "best practice" recommendation of a WikiProject. Best practice means fixing problems without losing contributors. I don't see that post hoc is a requirement, as long as both actions happen - clean up and notice.

Going forward, I would appreciate if you would follow editing policies by not continuing to reinsert controversial edits once you know that another editor disagrees with you without first achieving consensus. Dispute resolution is always an option. --Moonriddengirl 12:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again for not reverting, thanks for collaborating on editing. "fixing problems without losing contributors," we agree. I think we can do both, clearly state the requirements so as to not conflict with policy and encourage best practice (just not both at the same time in the same word). Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 18:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Is close paraphrasing acceptable?

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#Is close paraphrasing acceptable?. A WP:Permalink to that discussion is here. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)