User talk:Chu jung

Welcome!

Hello, Chu jung, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

and I have reverted your recent addition to the Starrett article. Please review our guidelines at WP:UNDUE about not giving undue weight to articles and our guidelines on original research (since your comment about their ethics policy being 'unenforceable' sounded like your personal opinion and not the opinion of a quoted source. Syrthiss (talk) 11:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I have reverted it again. I will take this time to warn you about the 3 revert limit policy.  You are not there yet, but you look like you are heading down that path. Syrthiss (talk) 15:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Syrthiss. Thank you for your helpful contributions to the L.S. Starrett Company article.

I can see that you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! You are clearly very experienced in this field. Are you an administrator?

It seems to me that you have reverted more than me and, after reading the guidelines you referred me to it would seem that you are also heading down the three revert limit path. Clearly, we do not want to engage in an editing war here since it is not in the Wikipedian spirit so if you could give me some clarification on the questions below, we can probably reach an understanding.

1. "and I have reverted your recent addition to the Starrett article. Please review our guidelines at WP:UNDUE about not giving undue weight to articles and our guidelines on original research (since your comment about their ethics policy being 'unenforceable' sounded like your personal opinion and not the opinion of a quoted source. Syrthiss (talk) 11:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)"

Why then did you delete two whole sourced paragraphs after the point about the ethics policy being 'unenforcable'? Both of these paragraphs were fully referenced and were no more unduly weighted than any of the other parts of the article as a whole.

2. "I have reverted it again. I will take this time to warn you about the 3 revert limit policy. You are not there yet, but you look like you are heading down that path. Syrthiss (talk) 15:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)"

It would appear that you simply reverted without noticing the changes I made to the text and the validity of the sources.

3. What is your interest in this particular article (other than your being a Wikipedian) when you seem to have such a wide range of other interests as well? Chu jung (talk) 16:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I am indeed an administrator here. Yes, I am also starting down the path but since I know the policies related to edit warring I would stop...whereas I don't know what knowledge you might have of the relevant policies so I don't want you to unwittingly continue to revert and end up blocked (tho obviously not by me).  I deleted the two paragraphs because while I am not sure that even the preexisting paragraph isn't undue weight, certainly the three paragraphs (at that point almost a full third of the article) felt to me to be undue.  I did, I admit, revert without noticing your changes to the paragraphs.  However, comparing them after I saw your note didn't remove the undue weight...though thank you for providing a good source for the addition.


 * My interest in the article is merely that I placed it on my watchlist back in April after noticing a single purpose account making unsupported changes in it. I often review the Recent Changes page for new accounts making vandal edits, though I do not limit myself to acting solely on vandalism.  In that case, it wasn't simple vandalism so I reverted the unsupported material.  Since we're asking about connections to the subject of the article, what is yours? Feel free to reply here.  I copied your comments above from your userpage, assuming you intended them to be here. Syrthiss (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps if you could underline or highlight the text that you consider to be undue weight, we can ask a moderator or some such person to adjudicate. As far as I can see, Wikipedia articles are all works in progress and whatever people choose to add to this (under this or subsequent sub-headings) will mean that the three paragraphs are no longer a third of the article. Merely cancelling the edit and reverting smacks of the approach of the father in the film, 'A River Runs Through It'. Alternatively, you may like to edit it yourself (you say that the final source is good)and let me have a look at it. I presume that any changes I make subsequent to that will then not be considered as reverts. My interest in the L. S. Starrett Company stems from my use of their tools - which, incidentally, I think are very good, but don't want to give undue weight to Chu jung (talk) 17:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * We cannot use future development of an article as a rationalization to make it a coatrack of negativity at the current time. Since I have no interest in the company itself, I'd prefer not to try and edit your text to make it acceptable.  Despite your inventive analogy, reversion is very commonplace on wikipedia.  It is up to the editor wishing to add contentious material to find consensus for their edits and often material will be boldly added, reverted by another editor, and then they begin a discussion about the merits for the edit (see WP:BRD.  All that said, is there an editor who you would consider neutral whose third opinion you would accept about that material's suitability for the article? Syrthiss (talk) 11:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

OK. At this juncture, though, let's reinsert the paragraph (with slightly different cohesive markers)relating to the Starrett Company's introduction of a code of ethics and deal with the bits about Brazil in due course. Chu jung (talk) 13:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)