Wikipedia talk:Move review/Log/2014 March

Restringing
There have been a number of edits that purely change the stringing, with no edit summaries, and it's actually quite hard to see exactly what these do in the diffs.

But this is an example of a completely inappropriate edit, in my opinion.

I was replying to JHunterJ when I said I'm sorry you think.. (my new emphasis). The new stringing now makes it appear that I was replying to Cas Liber. That is quite simply untrue, it misquotes me, it renders my grammar illogical, it simply should not be done.

The comment tangential remark on capitalization has also been indented so as to now appear to be a reply to a completely different post to the one to which it actually replied.

It is of course particularly unfortunate that this destruction of the logic of Overturn arguments has been performed by one who had voted to Endorse. I am not alleging any breach of good faith, I'll defer to Heinlein's Law. It remains unfortunate.

Rather than sort the whole mess out, I think the five edits by this user 14:33 - 14:37 on 30 March should all be reverted, and the user mildly trouted and invited to resubmit any content thus lost. There may not be any. The vote which preceded these five edits should stay (which prevents a simple rollback).

I have posted a heads-up on the talk page of the user responsible, and also on the talk page of the user whose particular edit (as well as at least two of mine) was affected by the example I cite above, and also on the project page adjacent to posts affected by that example, but there's currently no warning there about the other restringings.

Comments? Andrewa (talk) 16:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

More restringings by the same editor. I haven't checked to see whether any of these are objectionable. Andrewa (talk) 08:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Reply to the above was ''As you might have guessed, this help to make the order slightly more clear. ''. Not impressed. I've asked explicitly below and on the user talk page that they stop doing it. Andrewa (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Questions from the project page
User:Mama meta modal has asked the following questions and made a comment regarding replies to them. The reasons for replying here rather then there will become obvious below.

Andrewa, (1) why do you say (e.g. 00:27, 29 March 2014) that bird species name are "regularly capitalised in English", while even the International Ornithological Committee agrees that their internal rules are "contrary to the general rules of spelling for mammals, birds, insects, fish, and other life forms (i.e., use lowercase letters)"?
 * (Reply to 1) You don't give a reference, but you seem to have misunderstood what the IOC is saying there. They are saying that their rules are contrary to the general rules for all life forms.

''Andrewa, (2) why do you say (e.g. 00:27, 1 April 2014) that there are "other guidelines correctly quoted by those of us who opposed the moves" without citing them? Simply because they are actually local discussions and not official guidelines of Wikipedia?''
 * (Reply to 2) No, and please assume good faith as I am with you. I have cited the guideline to which I refer in several places, including the first few times I drew attention to this. To do so every time would be overlinking, in my opinion. Would you like to withdraw the second part of the question?

Andrewa, (3) why do you say (e.g. 11:36, 1 April 2014) that the only question is to know if the move discussion was closed correctly and at the same time scatter the discussion in so many directions?
 * (Reply to 3) Good point. I think some discussion of the wider issues is helpful in a Move Review, but in this one many editors have gone 'way beyond what is helpful, and in hindsight I must include myself in this. I do make mistakes and this was one of them. Much of the discussion should have been on the talk page, for example. In my defense, I'm the only one who has tried to use the talk page at all as of yet. I'm not as bad as many. To set a good example, let's continue these discussions here rather than on the project page.

Andrewa, (4) why do you say (e.g. 01:33, 3 April 2014) that WP:Birds and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters are "both guidelines" while only the latter is an official guideline of Wikipedia?
 * (Reply to 4) I've already answered this in several places. The MOS has the status of a guideline, in fact its main page is itself explicitly a guideline.

''Andrewa, (5) why do you say (e.g. 09:01, 3 April 2014) that consistency "is not the issue here"? Didn't you realise that the general rules for the title of article about animal species are unfortunately not yet applied in most bird articles?''
 * (Reply to 5) OK, that's this edit. Yes, I did realise that. Didn't you realise that not all of us agree that this is unfortunate?

Andrewa, (6) why do you say (e.g. 09:01, 3 April 2014) that "consistency is good" and at the same time fight against it?
 * (Reply to 6) Same edit as (5). I'm not for one moment opposed to consistency, and I'm afraid I think that to say that I fight against it is a hopeless overgeneralisation, to the point of being a misrepresentation of what I said, and unhelpful. Consistency is always good, but sometimes there are other considerations as well, and in this case there's also another way of achieving this consistency.

Andrewa, (7) why do you emphasise (17:05, 3 April 2014) on consensus to promote a Fait accompli that is contradicted by the general rules as well as by Wikipedia official and consensual polices and conventions?
 * (Reply to 7) This edit. I don't see the problem here. You are speaking like a soap box orator, frankly, and this is not helpful. Can you sort out the logic (if there is any) from the rhetoric?

Andrewa, (8) why do you say (e.g. 17:05, 3 April 201) that "there's a valid basis for the WikiProject's local standard" while you know that it is not the case here due to WP:LOCALCONSENSUS?
 * (Reply to 8) Same edit as (7). I say that because in my view it's true, for the reasons I gave. Again, I think your turn of phrase here is inappropriate.

''Thanks in advance for your answers (citing the eight numbers in your answer will allow everybody to understand more clearly to which question each answer refer). Mama meta modal (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC).''
 * (Reply to that last comment) I hope that this meets your expectations. Now, might you in turn reply to my invitation above for comments regarding your of my posts? I placed a heads-up on your talk page some time ago. Andrewa (talk) 18:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

There have also been posted on the project page answers by others to some of these questions. Please see those there, but as observed above, discussion is probably better here rather than cluttering the project page. Andrewa (talk) 18:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your answers. By the way, I answered on my talk page (on 31 March 2014) to the message you posted there. Mama meta modal (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC).
 * I have restored the stringing of my comment above, which you changed despite it being fairly obvious that I would not want it done. The zero-indenting is necessary to make it clear that my signature applies to the zero-indented text above it too.
 * This has meant that there's an extra level of indenting of your reply to it. I think that's the lesser of two evils, and if you think it's a problem, feel free to adjust the indenting of your post. I will then fix mine if I think it necessary.
 * I have replied on your talk page, and posted your reply As you might have guessed, this help to make the order slightly more clear above. As you might have guessed, I'm not impressed. I'm afraid we are approaching the limits of assuming good faith. This looks like deliberate baiting to me, and that is disruption. Please stop it.
 * Please do not restring my posts. If you think my stringing is in error, comment on my talk page, and hopefully we can come to an agreement on fixing it. TIA. Andrewa (talk) 01:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)