Talk:Doreen Lorenzo

Unexplained reversion
Having been reverted by without explanation, I am wondering why. Their edit summary says "then take to talk page to discuss, but I disagree with some of these changes", but I'm not sure what to "take to talk page" without knowing what the concerns are. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 03:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for coming to the talk page. First and foremost, please review my edits to the article as well, since I've incorporated some of your proposed changes into the current version. However, I disagreed with some of your changes, some of which went against Wikipedia's manual of style. What specific concerns do you have with the current article? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 23:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe are the remaining differences between the edits (though your removal of the sentence "Great design is inseparable from other disciplines like business and technology", Lorenzo said upon receiving her position at the University of Texas. is new and is more than reasonable). I'm failing to see what is against the MOS here. Could you clarify what you mean? Thanks, 142.160.131.202 (talk) 04:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, so rather than just slapping tags on the article, I'd rather discuss ways to improve the article. In terms of formatting, "2013 – present" should not be changed to "2013–present", and "Washington, D.C." should not be changed to "Washington, DC". What other concerns do you have? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:56, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


 * With respect to those two formatting changes which you mention violate the MOS, where in the MOS is that provided?


 * You can already see that the other changes made were:
 * Addition of birth year and age to the infobox;
 * Removal of needless inappropriate parameters from the infobox template (e.g., height, weight) in accordance with the template documentation; ✅
 * Migration to official URL in the infobox and removal of URL needlessly overwriting Wikidata data in the EL section;
 * Addition of her birth month to the lead (which is already included in infobox);
 * Addition of her spouse to the infobox (for which I am happy to provide a reliable source);
 * Formatting a block quotation in accordance with the MOS;
 * Removal of the publisher from a citation in accordance with the template documentation as "the publisher's name is substantially the same as the name of the work" (hell, the inclusion of the publisher for The New York Times is literally the example used in the template documentation);
 * Removal of a needless comma; and
 * Addition of Portal:Biography. ✅


 * With which of these changes do you take issue? It seems odd that you would blanketly revert these changes without actively having concerns about them (especially with WP:OWNBEHAVIOR providing "An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it 'unnecessary' without claiming that the change is detrimental" as an example of ownership behaviour).


 * Finally, with respect to the addition of advert and peacock, do you feel them to be inaccurate? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If you don't mind, I invite you to make additional changes to the article, but please make them one at a time so others can easily revert individual changes. At first glance, your proposed changes above seem appropriate. Please do not add tags to the top of the article without justifying why they should be included here. I'd rather we address the problems than slap tags on top. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:39, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, I forgot to include a link. Regarding endashes and date ranges, please see Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers. Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)