Talk:William H. Bell (servant)

Editing
I came to this article in good faith as it was listed by Wikipedia as needing a lot of copy edit improvement. I did considerable work to improve it just a little bit. One of the main editors of this article reverted some of my edits and admonished me on my talk page for "damaging" the article. It needs a lot more work. Here is just one example of a massive need for copy editing: "Powell insisted that he and only he must give Seward the medicine himself and would not tell William Bell." I will leave improvement of this article to other editors. I am out of here! Unfairnessdoctrine (talk) 03:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Permission is not required to edit any Wikipedia article. If you feel you can improve something, then Wikipedia wants you to WP:BOLD and do so. Mistakes are fine as long as they are made in good faith and not repeated. If another editor reverts one of your edits and you disagree, then try to engage them in discussion here on the talk page per WP:BRD.
 * if you feel an edit made by another is not an improvement, then you may revert them. You should, however, also be willing to engage in discussion and explain why in terms of relevant policies and guidelines when asked to do so. It's consensus established through discussion which decides what to do when there are disagreements over content. You may have created the article, but you have no final editorial control over its content and nobody needs prior approval to edit it. Since Unfairnessdoctrine seems to feel your version needs improvement, I suggest you discuss things with them to better understand their position and see if together the two of you can find some common ground on how to improve the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:03, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I did not mean to say that you need to ask for permission, I meant to say you should preview the edit before you save it. I'm afraid Unfairnessdoctrine damaged code for sources and heading titles. Most of what Unfairnessdoctrine did was very good! Damaging was not the term I should have used. Also I certainly don't consider owning this article but I would like to work with all of you in improving it. 22mikpau (talk) 12:05, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 22mikpau, I did preview my edits. I kept the needed citations. I may have removed one phrase with its citation, but the citation was still attached to the sentence. I am puzzled as to why you keep claiming I "damaged" the article. And there is no way editing articles damages code. Editing is all about making changes and improving the article. Thanks Marchjuly. Unfairnessdoctrine (talk) 14:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that might have been referring to your removal of the section heading "Night of April 14, 1865" when they used the word "damage". If you double check your edit, you 'll see that it was one of the changes you made. Perhaps you didn't notice it and simply removed it by accident, or perhaps you actually feel it is not needed. Regardless of the reason why it was done, removing the heading essentially combined two sections of the article into a single "Early life" one. Whether that's a good idea, it is something that can effect the layout and flow of the entire article, so it's might a little better to be WP:CAUTIOUS and discuss such a change in the future. If you post something on the talk page and nobody responds after a reasonable amount of time, then you can assume WP:SILENCE. If someone does respond, you can discuss. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Marchjuly, the grammatical structure was/is very problematic and the improvement required some complexity. In trying to improve it, I likely knocked out the heading inadvertently. That's a mistake, not damage, and is easily edited back. As it is, 22milkpau has already reverted some substantial improvements. Instead of accepting improvement, 22milkpau, is guarding over the article to "protect" it from further improvements. Here is just one example from the article: "...asked Powell to walk more quiet up the stairs in his boots." That is why I will make no further edits to the article. But, it will remain on the list of articles needing substantial grammatical edits. Unfairnessdoctrine (talk) 22:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I assumed the removal was a mistake, but also please try and assume good faith regarding 22milkpau's revert as well. Sometimes new editors who mean well just mistakenly do a little too much. 22milkpau has stated that using the word "damage" was in error and also expressed a willingness to work with others in improving the article. That does not sound like "guarding" to me. Most reverts/removals seem to be done because one editor believes (sometimes times incorrectly) that they are needed for encyclopedic reasons, so they being reverted shold not be taken personally. Anyway, you can edit what you like; however, if you're really intending to be WP:HERE, you've got to expect that your edits will be occasionally reverted, even by mistake. Part of collaborative editing is finding ways to move past any initial disagreements you may encounter with another editor and still figure out ways to improve an article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@Unfairnessdoctrine I didn't even create this article. That was User:Ted.gehring. He did the main layout and facts we see in this present version. I did make the most edits but that's because I do small edits at a time. I came here and edited it because I thought it would improve the encyclopedia and I'm still here because I want to improve it just like any other article not because it's "my" article. Now in the larger scheme of things we should continue to do what we're here to do: Improve this page for the sake of the encyclopedia and all the people who read it. I am sorry I reverted your grammar edits and I think your a good addition fixing the grammar here.22mikpau (talk) 12:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC) 22mikpau (talk) 12:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

my life
,kjbgf .kjy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:988:5EAE:E981:587E:BF64:B33B (talk) 23:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)