User talk:KeepRefrigerated

KeepRefrigerated,

Thank you for wanting to improve the Major League Soccer article, but after reviewing your edits I reverted some of them. That process was more difficult than it had to be because you edited several sections in some of your edits, which made it hard to review exactly what you edited. In the future try to break down your edits as much as possible into specific sections, especially an article as large as this one, as it will make it much easier for everyone else to see exactly what you changed. The biggest problem is that when you change the way paragraphs are set up, ie adding a new paragraph or splitting a paragraph into two or more new paragraphs, the history page has a hard time determining what is new from edit to edit and marks the vast majority of it as new, which in turn makes the review process very difficult. The vast majority of what you changed was correct and appropriate, so thank you for it.

Grant.alpaugh 11:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * In other words, despite the fact that the changes themselves were "correct and appropriate," you've "reverted" much of the work I did because you've got a procedural/red-tape beef. You have, in other words, consciously inserted errors, outdated information and sloppy writing back into the entry.


 * This is what sucks about Wikipedia and hive-mind enterprises in general. Lowest-common-denominator wins while truth, quality and everybody else loses.


 * Incidentally, I'd advise you to have a look at the usage note here regarding collective nouns: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=collective%20noun ("When a collective noun naming a group of persons is treated as singular, it is referred to by the relative pronoun that or which: His crew is one that (or which) works hard.")


 * I think you've been listening to too much British soccer commentary.


 * I'm not going to get all blustery about real-world credentials, but just trust me: You don't want to get into a writing and grammar fight with me.


 * Thanks for making the MLS entry suck again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KeepRefrigerated (talk • contribs) 14:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, first of all, just calm down a minute. I didn't in one way mean to insult you or "make the MLS entry suck again." Please see WP:Assume Good Faith. Now to the point. I noticed that you made a LOT of edits to the page that were hard to sift through because of the way in which you made them, ie you didn't break the changes up so they are easier to evaluate. I'm in the middle of finals week so I didn't have the time to go through them all with a fine tooth comb. All I did was revert the changes so that you could go back and do them in a way that makes them easier to peer review - for lack of a better term. Often a lot of the accusations about "hive-mind enterprises" are made by people who are seeking to unilaterally circumvent generally accepted policy. I think you'll agree that the MLS article is a large one that has many regular contributors, and rarely does it necessitate many, many changes all at once by just one person. I'm not trying to claim ownership of the article or anything, I'm simply saying that if you feel the need to make a bunch of changes all at once to the article, at least do it in a way that makes it easier for everyone to see just what you've changed. If for no other reason than it allows everyone to better learn from your vast knowledge of "writing and grammar." Grant.alpaugh 14:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Grant.alpaugh"