Talk:Ivan (gorilla)

My edit certainly was not advertising. It was as brief a summary of the reference that I linked to. If anything it was an expanded restatment of the comment made in the lead. The citation that you reverted was to a very good Seattle Times article by Sandi Doughton. I did not feel that I could have done a good job of paraphrasing the article's salient points. Glad that I hadn't taken the time as you would have reverted it and I would have wasted my time. Could you please review and revise so that it doesn't sound adverty or simply self revert. This is the article Thank you.Oldperson (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There has been no response. I assume that you are busy elsewhere's. If no response from you in 24 hours. I will restore my edit. Thank you.Oldperson (talk) 23:41, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I recommend you read WP:TONE. The tone of your edit did not seem encylopedic, and immediately pointing the reader to an external article is not really appropriate, per WP:EXT. Alongside that, you effectively added a section that exists solely to link the reader to external reading. --MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 02:39, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I just had a conversation with they said much the same thing. They also advised me that my tone in my talk page edit to you was antagonistic. I agree. As regards any  edit to Ivan. I have no vested interest in this article. I was simply trying to improve it in reference to the article in the Seattle Times. I came to this article from a comment on Teahouse. I was familiar with Ivan as I shopped often at the B&I Store in Tacoma. Really felt sorry to see him caged in a cell with jungle scenes painted on concrete walls and a large plate glass window so the customers could see (and taunt) him. I felt that the  article did not have enough content and tried to add some, but just don't have the time and ability to paraphrase and rewrite Sandi Doughton's Seattle Times Article. Still don't, and sans an investment in the article or Ivan.. I choose to move on. Apologies for my ill treatment of you.Oldperson (talk) 02:51, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No apology needed. It can be frustrating trying to work on an article sometimes. --MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 14:07, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I read something the other day in policy and guidelines about reverting and it came to me last night. One of the guidelines is that before reverting, one should try and improve the edit. Reverting is appropriate for vandalism or disruption. I was doing neither WP:QUO. I realize that editors are so busy, that they become inured to intentions behind edits,sometimes seeing everything as a disruption, but often just opting for the easy path of "revert" rather than a partial revert or even rewording to improve the edit. The editors who use twinkle have a first reaction to revert, because it is easier. Sometimes the tools we create,if not employed properly can cause damage. I can use a hammer to build a wall or to tear down a wall. Thanks for the word of comfort.Oldperson (talk) 17:43, 22 November 2019 (UTC)