Talk:Author editing

Can we PLEASE remove the blatant sexism in the first sentence? Whether or not it is statistically true, it's irrelevant and somewhat offensive both to the profession and to women alike - it's like going and writing "(most are women)" on the "Nurse" article. Oceanembers (talk) 19:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits and their reversion
I recently copyedited this entry to improve its language and flow, but my edits were reverted with the explanation that they were "disimprovements" and not adequately explained. I first would like to note that I consider it very poor form to revert changes entirely without reviewing the individual changes made—if they're labelled "disimprovements," adequate explanations need to be provided.

The edits I made clearly improved the text of the entry—I'm not saying this because I possess superior editing skills (I don't) but because most of my changes addressed basic flaws in style and language. For example, my edits brought the introductory sentence in line with the title of the entry (using "author editing" instead of "authors" editor"), replaced awkward "he/she" pronoun constructions with a subject (a cardinal rule of good writing), made sure that nonrestrictive clauses are set off with commas, replaced ill-placed colons with appropriate punctuation, reduced wordiness, revised tedious "if...then" constructions with more felicitous wording...I could go on if needed, but stop here, because I believe I made my point.

I'm open to suggestions for improving the language even further, but I submit that the changes I made improve the quality of the entry, so I will go ahead and reapply them. Feel free to amend but do not simply revert. Thanks Malljaja (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Malljaja, I'm glad you are interested in this page (which I created). I reverted your changes because they were disimprovements, from the first sentence—which defines an authors' editor, not author editing—to the last where the introduction of "also" distorts the meaning (not "in addition to" but "before"!). Your edits were disimprovements because they reflect your preferred style but do not add to or improve content, and they sometimes distort meaning and introduce errors. If you have problems with individual sentences, then please edit them one by one and explain your changes, so I can respond.  Remember, an authors' editor respects the author's efforts in writing, and does not take over the text by imposing personal style when the original version was not wrong, as in this case. --Valmataro (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello Valmataro, thank you for your response and explanation. I very much appreciate that you took upon you to create this page, but I also note that you do not seem to be familiar with some of WP's policies. Unlike the creation of, for example, blogs, creation of WP entries implies that you accept that changes are being made to its content and language. In other words, you don't own the article you created. So, your exhortation, "remember, an authors' editor respects the author's efforts in writing, and does not take over the text by imposing personal style when the original version was not wrong" and edit summary for your last note on this page, "explanation why I've reverted to my original" (emphasis mine) miss the mark—WP entries are multi-author/multi-editor projects and making changes to the entry, for example, to improve the language as I have done (and explained above) are not only permitted but encouraged. Moreover, some of my edits have, in fact, corrected things like incorrect punctuation and a mismatch between the first line of the entry and the entry's title (which is "Author editing," not "Authors' Editor), and removed editorializing phrases (for example, "curiously," in the last sentence). Therefore, I'd ask you to undo the reversion of my edits and, if needed, amend those edits with which you disagree on the basis of sufficiently detailed explanations for why you do not see them as improvements. WP's manual of style contains some useful pointers on styling and language in entries, which you may want to peruse. Thanks Malljaja (talk) 20:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Emergency plan
Emergency plan of airport 2A02:9B0:2:FCDF:17C7:A20B:C331:617C (talk) 09:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)