User talk:FakeTango

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Jedi6 06:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Your edits on Succession to Muhammad
FakeTango, I'm not quite sure what to do about your edits. You seem to like long, complex sentences and have rewritten in a manner that seems to me to make the article denser and hard to read.

On the one hand, I wrote much of the text and I don't want to be one of the sort of Wikipedia editors who defends his/her precious prose against any editing. On the other hand, I'm not sure that it's such a good idea for someone who has been on Wikipedia for three days to start copyediting an extremely contentious article with a long history.

It's late and I'm tired, so probably the best thing to do is sleep on it. Perhaps I'll have a clearer view in the morning. Zora 10:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, well as an established WP veteran you will no doubt realise that in general, my length of time here is particularly irrelevant. Conversely, the usefulness of fresh eyes is a truism that is wholly relevant. This labours the point a bit, but there is also your general invitation for others to pitch in (however let me hasten to add that you do seem to have an entirely reasonable approach; you are perhaps the first user I've encountered who has ever acknowledged straight up the proprietary feeling we all may possess towards "our" articles and who has not summarily reverted; seriously, bravo).
 * This aside, we may not be off to a good start because I feel that my edits have clarified those sections I have touched upon, specifically because these sections were already "long and complex" and/or not particularly clear. I don't feel there have been any unnecessary extensions, such extensions as have been introduced are short, there have been as many reductions as extensions, and in any event clarity must not be sacrified for brevity. As examples, the article did not have a lead para in line with standard WP format (I know its not mandatory, but still) which introduced major terms, there was the informal terminology in the lead, and what about the first paras of historical problems and overview? Do you really feel that my version has not improved matters? I wasn't comfortable with the last sentence of the 1st overview para and will work on that presently, but your answer will help determine how much consensus we have to start off with. For my part, I think we have plenty. FakeTango 10:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * People usually reply on the OTHER person's talk page -- which is kinda dumb, because it leaves the conversation split into disconnected parts, but there it is. Anyhow -- just looking at the prose of your reply, I must say that my impression re your prose style is confirmed ... you DO like longer sentences, I like shorter ones. Your style seems more diffuse and less "punchy" than I prefer. OK, we have different styles. Given that my style is not BAD, perhaps it would be a better use of your time to rewrite something that is indubitably BAD? How about Khadijah bint Khuwaylid? The writing style needs to be NPOVed, numbers under 100 should be spelled out, per CMS, and the writing is frequently clumsy.


 * It's not that I reject editing from anyone ... I've always liked what Mustafaa, IFaqeer, and Gurubrahma do with my prose. They generally remove, not add. You're adding, not removing. Does that make sense?


 * I'll hold off longer on editing the Succession article, as I want to be clear-headed if and when I do it. Zora 19:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * (Not sure where you're going with the comment about responding on other pages. Whatever some users may choose to do, this is not standard). Re style, also not sure whether its just about longer sentences and being more diffuse, as plainly various things have been shortened. Consider lack of punchiness point as not being sustainable. Particularly consider it rather inappropriate to suggest what would be a "better use" of my time. Otherwise, fair comments and I admire your very last (wish I had more of that). I will however take a look at Khadijah (as instructed!). From a quick scan of the first couple of paragraphs it reads ok but overall it does seem to have a certain Abrahamic "X begat Y begat Z" quality. FakeTango 05:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)