User talk:Wptraineem

Your comment at WP:AN3
This comment of yours is disturbing. The only article you've edited is Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer. User:Maxitrillian LG, whom you accuse of deleting referenced material, has never edited that article. Please explain why you left such a comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Quotes
Wptraineem, I'll address other issues with Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer on its talk page another time. But there is one point I should make now, a point which will apply to any editing you do on Wikipedia, of whatever articles. Don't edit quotes to change their meaning. If the meaning isn't appropriate, don't use the quote. It is misrepresentation to change it. If you think the original writer was wrong, don't change it to what you think would be right. That's not truthful; it's not was written.

In this particular case, you changed "probably the most significant pan-European merger to date in the restructuring of Europe’s legal services" by removing "the restructuring of", so that it read "Probably the most significant pan-European merger to date in Europe’s legal services" with no indication that anything had been removed or that it was not what had been written. That significantly changed the meaning, making the statement much more inclusive than it actually was. You changed it with the edit comment "FT quote took out restructuring as it was a merger." That indicates that you did not understand the writer (who was talking about that period of restructuring of Europe's legal services in a series of mergers, not just the merger of Freshfields, Bruckhaus and Deringer) and so serves as a fine example of another reason not to change quotes: the writer you are quoting is quite likely to be the one that's right, not you. NebY (talk) 17:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks for the comments.

I've read the article. It was printed before the restructuring and actually in 2000 at the time of the merger hence why I thought it better to remove restructuring as that could be misleading when the article was actually about the merger. I'm happy to leave restructuring as it is if you'd rather leave it in.

Are there any other issues?


 * Regarding the quote, I'm glad you will leave it intact, though I fear you may still not understand why that is required of you as a Wikipedia editor and not just a matter of whether I'd "rather leave it in." If you think there is a danger of confusion between the restructuring of Europe's legal sector and the "restructuring" of Freshfields, then you should consider using another term for the later events, such as reduction in size, personnel cuts or redundancies.
 * Yes, there are many other issues with the article (such as repetition, fragmentation and promotional tone) and I'll address those at another time on the article talk page and by editing the article. 18:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I have worked on improving the history section. I'll certainly leave the quote alone. I would appreciate it if you didn't alter the history section. I'm a law firm historian so I have researched and sourced the material in that section quite extensively and I don't want it altered arbitrarily.


 * I appreciate that you have spent some time on the article but please read Ownership of articles and Expert editors, and do not ask me or anyone else not to alter the history section, or imply that we would do so "arbitrarily". It has many problems as part of a Wikipedia article. Please also read the Welcome message above and start signing your name on talkpages. Note also that you can indent posts, as I have done here, using colons. Last, as you declare yourself to be a law firm historian, please read Conflict of interest as well as Expert editors and declare any conflict of interest, as broadly outlined there, that you may have with regards to Freshfields. NebY (talk) 21:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I have read all of the above. You may not be aware but a conflict of interest wold imply some kind of financial or tangible connection with the company in question which I do not have. I'm a historian and as the firm in question is the oldest of its type, I've come across a fair amount of research about it. All are sourced.

If that's the case then please refrain from asking me not to shorten the above quote. There is not a jot of difference between that and asking you not to arbitrarily alter content added by someone else.