Talk:Essjay controversy/Archive 10

message: I broke the introduction into an intro and new section, "initial reaction"
I broke the new intro section into two paragraphs
I got rid of the 'box within a box' contents ( the TOChidden )
I widened the Timeline box (from 20em to 30em...hope that doesn't go in the face of policy)
My intention was a less cluttered and more readable beginning to the article
NOTE: I just made the changes instead of trying to describe them all, if i've broken policy regarding size of boxes, or if people in general dislike, it isn't a problem, feel free to revert...however, I'd appreciate it staying long enough for a few people to weigh in, rather than the first person to see it re-verting it. Thanks.
Since it didn't refer to content, I figured I'd try the 'be Bold' credo *grin* -- Kavri 04:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. - Netscott, sorry for taking out TOChidden before others could weigh in, but I found the Table of Contents box containing a Contents box a bit extraneous. Same as the other changes, if it is usual format or others like it, it can be reverted no problem. -- Kavri 04:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I boldly reverted the separate "Inital reaction" section and put the information back into the lede. The lede now gives the reader a quick overview of the entire incident, which is what a lede should do. The change also eliminates the oddity of two "Reaction" sections. Casey Abell 12:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, my edit summaries for these changes were a little harsh, and more than a little misspelled. My apologies for not phrasing them better. I do think a somewhat more comprehensive lede, covering the entire incident as briefly as possible, is better for the reader looking for quick information on this widely publicized controversy. Casey Abell 12:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I will attempt to organize to the timeline box. At the moment it is hanging over a quote. I will try to fix it. The 30% was too wide. :) - Mr.Guru (talk/contribs) 19:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't bother, QG...the problem was that someone put the quotes in boxes, and those boxes were interfering with the timeline; I've reverted it back to the blockquote style.  Please don't make the timeline any narrower, or it will be hard to read. Risker 19:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry. I did not make myself clear. I believe the timeline box position is better placed at the top right hand side. It looked odd in the middle right hand side of the page. And it was hanging over a quote and moving all the sentences the "Wikipedia community" section over to the left. Another editor added the quotations to the article. I agree, it makes for a visual break that is needed. Thanx. :) - Mr.Guru (talk/contribs) 20:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  very BOLD re-format (no change to content) 

message: ==International Flavour : French/French-Canadian articles
Continuing from discussion from the Maclean's section above.
Canada is a bilingual country, French and English. In the Province of Quebec, which is a majority French, and New Brunswick, which is heavily (not sure about majority) French, one can often easily have access to French media from both Canada and France. As well, Ottawa, the nation's capital, has media in both languages readily available, as all government employees are both French and English, usually. As well, Nova Scotia has several historically important French enclaves. Just a bit of background on why I'm tossing out some French links, rather than say them going to the French version of Wikipedia, though they could go either place as far as I'm concerned. Again, I'm not going to touch content on this one, just giving info for others to discuss. My french is pretty basic, so please don't put too much stock in my interpretation.
*Les spécialistes devront s'identifier sur Wikipedia
http://www2.canoe.com/techno/nouvelles/archives/2007/03/20070307-193504.html
Associated Press (AP)  
07/03/2007 19h35 
The title roughly translates to something like, 'Experts will have to identify themselves on Wikipedia'. It seems to contain the usual facts that are already in the 'Essjay controversy' article. However, there is one part that seems to be saying that an idea proposed at Wikipedia two years ago, is now resurfacing due to the controversy.  Was there some sort of identity/credential issue that hit the news two years ago?
Sidenote:I am a firm believer in the idea of using 'a' founder or no mention of founder at all
This article uses 'founder'
-- Kavri 00:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  International Flavour: French/French-Canadian articles 

message: Please discuss content changes to this article here on the talk page before making them. Three edits were made in short order by different editors that changed the entire POV of the article.  I have reverted to the state before those edits, please discuss them here before re-editing. Risker 02:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please discuss changes on talk page