Talk:Tiksi Airport

Untitled
I am developing and fine-tuning this page to get the templates and layout optimized before I upload the entire series of Soviet air bases to Wikipedia. -Timvasquez 22:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Reversion with no substantive explanation
A user, @Jan olieslagers, just reverted my recent edit with no explanation (on my page, his or her page, or the article's talk page) about why the new edits were incorrect or why the older version was superior (clearer, more encyclopedic tone, more standard usage for formal writing, etc.). The user appears not to be a native English speaker, so that may explain the level of familiarity with nuances of editing for formal writing, but it doesn't excuse a wholesale reversion with no explanation and a snarky comment. I will be happy to participate in a substantive discussion about why all the changes should have been reverted with no comment. Holy (talk) 07:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The explanation was given as a comment to the reverting edit: "Please do not correct what is not incorrect" (also known as "if it isn't broken, don't fix it"). Indeed I do not see any improvement in this modification. Feel free to discuss, either here or on our talk pages or wherever. Kindly, Jan olieslagers (talk) 13:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "Do not correct what is not incorrect" is absolutely NOT a Wikipedia standard for editing. Furthermore, you and I seem to disagree about what is "incorrect," and you made no effort to discuss this before you reverted. Your comment was snarky, not a substantive explanation. WP:EP has many good points relevant to this discussion, including
 * WP:IMPERFECT explains that users should be encouraged to make incremental improvements to articles in several areas, such as sourcing, formatting, and improving and guarding against substandard writing.
 * WP:HANDLE says, "The editing process tends to guide articles through ever-higher levels of quality over time. Great Wikipedia articles can come from a succession of editors' efforts." That certainly runs contrary to your philosophy of reverting an edit that doesn't seem to you to fix an obvious problem.
 * WP:EPTALK starts with, "Be bold in updating articles, especially for minor changes and fixing problems. Previous authors do not need to be consulted before making changes. Nobody owns articles. If you see a problem that you can fix, do so."
 * As for the change itself: ". . . due to the runway being unsafe and needing repair work . . ." is clunky syntax at best, considered nonstandard by many. "Due to" as an adverbial phrase has indeed made its way into much published writing, but this sentence is a great example of its overuse. ("Due," as an adjective, needs a noun to modify.) "Due to" makes for an unclear connection between cause and effect, and "the runway being" is a mash-up (arguably nonstandard) of a noun adjunct and a gerund. The entire sentence can easily be made clearer and less awkward. ". . . because the runway was unsafe and needed repair work" shows a clear causal connection (with "because") between the events, and it uses straightforward syntax using indicative phrases that are easy to read and parse. Holy (talk) 18:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That sounds like you are much upset, which was not my purpose or intention, at the contrary. Still I can see only subjective arguments: "clunky syntax" - who says? "considered non-standard by many" - by whom? " "the runway being" is a mash-up" - no, at the contrary it is standard English. None of these have any factual reference to go by. Could it be that you are closer to North-American phraseology, while I am nearer to the English of England? Jan olieslagers (talk) 20:02, 5 February 2020 (UTC)