User talk:Anwegmann/Archives/2021/May

Edit war at Liberia
You and have been engaging in a slow edit war at Liberia for seven weeks. The two of you need to discuss what the short description should say at Talk:Liberia. - Donald Albury 17:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have engaged him twice on his talk page, warning him about his repeated, unexplained, and often counterintuitive edits and asking him to provide an explanation, in case I have missed one. He has never responded and has continued making the same unexplained, repetitive, and counterintuitive edits. I was trying to follow the three warning rule before reporting him, but this happened before the third warning had come. I'm not sure what else I am supposed to do about the situation. I'm all ears if you have any ideas. Anwegmann (talk) 21:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The 3RR rule is about three reverts in 24 hours, which you are nowhere near. Still though, you should have tried to start a discussion on the article talk page. That would give other editors an opportunity to weigh in. - Donald Albury 23:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. It was my understanding that before one editor reports another, they should first warn the perceived perpetrator—if that's the right word—three times for the same offense. If anything, that is something I have seen others do. The only reasons I reverted this user's edits were because they went counter to their own edits and likewise changed, without explanation, the short description that, to my understanding, had been in place for quite some time. As a result, as my experience has shown (and if I am incorrect, please let me know), I saw the burden of explanation/justification as placed on 's shoulders rather than mine, as they were the one seeking to change an establish piece of the article. In any case, I will happily bring this issue to Talk:Liberia. I admit, though, that I am not optimistic, given this user's previous edits, that they have a clear understanding of what the short description should be. Anwegmann (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have brought up the issue on Talk:Liberia, suggesting that the short description remain "Country on the Atlantic coast of West Africa", as it was before 's circuitous changes. Anwegmann (talk) 23:42, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * When the issue is a content dispute, which is what I see the short description dispute as, you have to show attempts to resolve the dispute by discussion. If one party fails to engage constructively in discussion, then it may be regarded as a behavioral problem, and reported as such. It must be clear that a problem reported to a notice board is a behavioral one, and not a content dispute, or it will be rejected. As long as you were edit warring without trying to discuss the wording on the talk page, any report you made to a notice board would be rejected, and you yourself might be criticized for the edit war. - Donald Albury 11:47, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Question about one Jane Roberts edit
Hello,. First of all, I'd like to thank you for your work helping with the Jane Roberts (first lady) page. I find most of your edits to the article very helpful and positive. There is one edit, I am not so sure about, however. The original article contained the following sentences:

"Soon after his presidency ended in 1876, Roberts died. Jane tried to nurse him back to health when he was ill, but she did not succeed."

This was cited using the The African American National Biography. In an edit of your's, this whole section was removed. I find this information important to the article. I wanted to ask you why this was removed, and how you think the it could be improved. RoundSquare (talk) 21:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It did not fit with the narrative. Regardless of whence the information came, it made the paragraph—and indeed the section as a whole—read like a list of facts rather than a narrative of her life. Indeed, many of my edits were an effort to change that same effect throughout the article. It's not a matter of that information being incorrect (although I would love to see the primary source[s] cited for that rather personal information, which admittedly sounds more or less speculative). It's a matter of it fitting where it was placed. Anwegmann (talk) 22:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC)