Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Keep Portland Weird

In this case, I think the refactoring is appropriate, since inline replies confuse things greatly. No meaning is lost, but some confusion may be averted in case the discussion needs to be reviewed. causa sui (talk) 04:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Deletion page refactoring (copied verbatim from causa sui Talk page)
Hi- do you have a problem with this refactoring? (see this edit too) I did it as an interruption as WP:TPO indicates is acceptable, but I can't really do it with my admin hat on since I've participated in the discussion. So, can you do whatever you deem is appropriate? tedder (talk) 02:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally, inline replies are a HUGE pet peeve. causa sui (talk) 04:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't like inline comments either, but I did one in this case because I thought the alternative was worse. I put the inlined note where I did because it applies specifically to the previous paragraph only, not to the whole posting.  Putting the note after the whole posting broke the connection between the note and what it referred to.  To clarify that connection, I found I had to belabor what I was trying to say much more than it was worth.  I made the choice that I thought would be least problematic.  I should also have replicated the signature, one of the techniques suggested in WP:Talk.  Others might disagree with my choice, as I disagree with many other choices that writers made on the page.  However, that is not the problem.  The problem is that no one should be able to make changes on a locked archive merely to express an editorial opinion about which reasonable people might differ.  Administration grants power to apply the rules, not power to ignore the rules.  If locking is not universally respected, it is really just a serving suggestion, and no debate will never have to end. Ornithikos (talk) 05:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:BIKESHED, I think. If you feel that strongly about it, go ahead and revert me. :-) causa sui (talk) 07:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * .. and WP:TROUT. In this case, I came to Causa sui because you (Ornithikos) said that was the next avenue, so I respected that. If you do it via interruption it should be done with an interruption comment, otherwise the context is completely lost. This isn't a slippery slope of admin abuse, WP:TPO certainly allows it- and the page isn't protected. It appears you just discovered the Wikipedia protection policy; please start at the Talk Page Guidelines, note it's a behavioral guideline. tedder (talk) 15:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I found those WP pointers very informative, and will try to implement what I have learned. A simple answer once existed to this problem: do nothing. That was the time to avoid WP:BIKESHED. Lacking that, a more collaborative approach could have helped: before changing my writing, talk to me to see if agreement can be reached, as it easily could have been. That opportunity was missed. I agree that inserting the note broke the contiguity of the posting, so I will not revert to the original, even though causa sui offered an opportunity to do it. Neither will I use the insertion technique again, because I do not want to use any technique that anyone might reasonably object to.

However, tedder's solution was to move my posting from where I put it to what he regarded as a better location. Good writing considers its context no less than its text, and I do not agree that the new location is better. The intervening paragraph separates the note from its context, leaving the note irrelevant. I would never have put any other note there either, because restoring the context would have required overemphasizing the point. Given the choice of writing what I did or nothing, I would have written nothing. The note was not that important anyway; I was just trying to thank someone for resisting incivility. I hope that we agree on the importance of such resistence.

What matters to me, as a professional writer, is that someone changed my writing against my will and left my name on it. No one is authorized to write in Wikipedia and attribute it to someone else. Fortunately, this problem has a solution. No acceptable location exists for my note, and no one replied to it. It has served no purpose except to cause disputation. Inappropriate Talk page content can be summarily deleted, and locking Deletion Discussion pages (as I now accept) is only a guideline where readability might be increased. Therefore I am going to revert myself. The offending note has vanished. No problem remains to be solved. Ornithikos (talk) 06:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)