Talk:Herbert W. Armstrong/Archive 5

message: Sarekofvulcan has ignored my request to not summarize my writings. He now has reverted my attempt and to undo his summary of what I said, after I specifically requested it be archived instead as a compromise. I've read the summary, and it makes me squirm (Please read the dialog today with Sarek, and it's kind of obvious why I would be uncomfortable with him in particular paraphrasing my words).  I've seen some of his characterization of  what I said, and let's just say I wasn't pleased.
Jebbrady 07:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Preekout, you seem familiar with Wikietiquette and Wikipedia in general. You haven't commented on the content of the article, but do you have any thoughts on Sarek summarizing my own words without asking me, then reverting my undo? Jebbrady 09:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jeb, you may disagree with his summaries but that does not mean you have the right to selectively remove them in such a way that it changes their meaning. Removing another editors comments is a big no-no. Please read WP:TPG and WP:RTP. 24.6.65.83 10:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: "Jeb, you may disagree with his summaries but that does not mean you have the right to selectively remove them in such a way that it changes their meaning. Removing another editors comments is a big no-no. Please read WP:TPG and WP:RTP. 24.6.65.83 10:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We've argued in circles over and over. Do you really think that's what I was trying to do? I've explained that it was a technical error and you continue to describe it in other terms, as if it was bad faith. Sarek brushed aside my inquiry about archiving without responding, and did not seek my one input in going forward with summarizing MY words--and these were not even postings he had been involved in in any way. He did not respond to my query about archiving, but began actually refactoring--way beyond what I obviously would have wanted based on what I said in the first query about archiving. It all there. against a Wikipedia policy and without consulting me in any way, then continued to do it after I told him not and I reverted the first summary. He then continued rewriting several other posts and reverting my undo. You then got involved in reverting my undo, causing the confusion, as you were rapid fire pushing a revert war against Wikipedia policy.  You got involved even though the record shows you were not involved in the original discussion of archiving in any way. Do you really think I'm going to waste my time looking at the three links you put up in light of this.  How about not brushing aside my request on this talk page to not reword what I posted?  Dead subject.  I'm not responding anymore to this.  I'll just paste this summary of what happened or the original dialog.  Cheers. 69.115.162.235 02:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I described the result; I did not speak to the motive. Your question about what admins will do can't be answered; to my knowledge, there has been no survey seeking their tendencies in such a situation, and it's faulty logic to try to generalize the actions of a large group of people with insufficient data. I'm sorry you feel that it's a waste of time to do minimal research on the mistake you made so you can avoid similar ones in the future. 24.6.65.83 06:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing my post against my request

message: "IP", I honestly don't understand what you're trying to say here: 
:"Jeb, you may disagree with his summaries but that does not mean you have the right to selectively remove them in such a way that it changes their meaning. Removing another editors comments is a big no-no. Please read WP:TPG and WP:RTP. 24.6.65.83 10:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We've argued in circles over and over. Do you really think that's what I was trying to do? I've explained that it was a technical error and you continue to describe it in other terms, as if it was bad faith. Sarek brushed aside my inquiry about archiving without responding, and did not seek my one input in going forward with summarizing MY words--and these were not even postings he had been involved in in any way. He did not respond to my query about archiving, but began actually refactoring--way beyond what I obviously would have wanted based on what I said in the first query about archiving. It all there. against a Wikipedia policy and without consulting me in any way, then continued to do it after I told him not and I reverted the first summary. He then continued rewriting several other posts and reverting my undo. You then got involved in reverting my undo, causing the confusion, as you were rapid fire pushing a revert war against Wikipedia policy.  You got involved even though the record shows you were not involved in the original discussion of archiving in any way. Do you really think I'm going to waste my time looking at the three links you put up in light of this.  How about not brushing aside my request on this talk page to not reword what I posted?  Dead subject.  I'm not responding anymore to this.  I'll just paste this summary of what happened or the original dialog.  Cheers. 69.115.162.235 02:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I described the result; I did not speak to the motive. Your question about what admins will do can't be answered; to my knowledge, there has been no survey seeking their tendencies in such a situation, and it's faulty logic to try to generalize the actions of a large group of people with insufficient data. I'm sorry you feel that it's a waste of time to do minimal research on the mistake you made so you can avoid similar ones in the future. 24.6.65.83 06:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: summaries "removed selectively" to change meaning

message: Since Jeb complained, I went and reviewed WP:REFACTOR, which says that if another editor objects to the refactoring of a Talk page, it needs to be undone. "..If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted.." If Sarek restores his summary lines in a free-standing comment of his own, in normal chronological order, then Jeb can't complain. Editors are free to summarize the views of others, and the latter can respond as they wish. EdJohnston 12:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a little confused about the last sentence there. Does that mean he can summarize, but it has to be done differently than the way he has been trying to do it? Jebbrady 12:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  (edit conflict) So if Sarek had placed his comments at the end of each section Jeb wouldn't be able to remove them, but because they were at the beginning he can? Wild. In that case, I'm going to restore the summarized sections to the text they had before Sarek started. What's there now is vastly different because Jeb only removed part of the work Sarek did. I'm also going to restore the various comments that Jeb removed from active discussions. 24.6.65.83 12:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm a little lost, because it seems some technical issue are coming into play. I'm quite new to Wikipedia--the Armstrong issue on this page was what got me involved for the first time.  What I'm trying to say is that my lack of experience with technical issues at Wikipdia should not be interpreted as bad faith.Jebbrady 12:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nothing more technical than selecting text, hitting delete and checking your work against previous versions. 24.6.65.83 12:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The content "removed" from active discussions resulted, I think, either from my confusion over the reverts that were imposed rapid fire style, or perhaps from the insert point jumping while I was posting comments after I accidentally hit the wrong key when at the extreme left margin.  This has happened to me several times, but figuring out what has been deleted is not easy--I'm surprised anyone noticed. I don't think you've got anything to worry about down the road.Jebbrady 12:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  When dealing with somebody who is in the habit of blanking, and not doing it very well, it's always wise to make sure posts aren't disappearing. 24.6.65.83 13:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: And if Sarek's summaries had actually altered the posts they summarized I'd be in total agreement with you. Since they consisted of additional comments without the removal of the source posts, and those very source posts are now archived and "hidden" even more with just the summaries as a stand-alone section, I don't see that this is a better solution. 24.6.65.83 14:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem as I see it is more in the hiding of the editors work and replacing it with the summary. Archiving without summarizing allows a third party to go through the posts and obtain their own point of view, albeit quite a long read through. Preekout 15:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't comfortable with hiding the source either, but he wasn't "replacing" it. Ed did ask somebody to try to summarize things, after all, and Sarek volunteered to do the first part of it. The original idea was that somebody else would summarize his summaries and distill out the major issues. I hope that aspect hasn't been lost. 24.6.65.83 15:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: From my reading of the REFACTOR guideline, what you describe would still count as refactoring, and we could only do it if Jeb does not object.  Actually, I think that your existing summary is helpful, and it might be a better use of our editing time to get started on a more targetted rewriting task, or negotiating one specific point about H. W. Armstrong. I still feel that the current article is terribly written and needs a lot of work, and I am now aware enough of different viewpoints that I think we could start rewriting in a neutral manner, if we discuss thoroughly. Even just getting agreement on reference cleanup would be useful. EdJohnston 14:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I find the irony amusing. If Jeb had just left the summaries in place and talked about his concerns instead of acting unilaterally, we probably would have ended up with unformatted summaries now safely tucked away in archives. Instead, they are prominently displayed in their own section on the live talk page. 24.6.65.83 15:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And again I'll say those should be removed from their own section because they amount to refactoring Preekout 15:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  Ed, I suspect you're right. I've taken it over to the Village Pump for more opinions, just to be sure.--SarekOfVulcan 15:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  We have to undo the refactoring 

message: (I'm moving Sarek's summaries into their own section, per formatting advice of EdJohnston and the desire to Sarek's posts preserved. 24.6.65.83 12:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This also seems icky because it seems like you are trying now to create just a summary section and eventually everything else will be archived off (basically effecting what user Jebbrady is complaining about now). I would strongly suggest that you have Sarek place these inline after the suggested articles and then remove this section quickly. If this is already your intention then good deal this comment is superfluous please ignore, if it is not then please step back and consider that this does not look like you are dealing in good faith with either user Jebbrady or the WP:REFACTOR policy. Remember no one is entitled to act in Bad faith just because you think someone isn't acting in Good faith.  Preekout 14:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have preferred that the summaries be attached to the sections they summarize so that people could easily see the source, but the revert wars have necessitated this route. My interest is in preserving Sarek's work since I feel very strongly that removing comments because somebody doesn't like them is a BAD THING; where they are placed is of secondary concern. 24.6.65.83 14:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree: those summaries need to be with their archived comments, or deleted. Since Jeb doesn't easily write concisely, I feel strongly that the summaries should not be deleted.--SarekOfVulcan 14:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that removing comments because somebody doesn't like them is a bad thing. But where they are placed isn't really a secondary concern it's a primary one in this case. Technically they were part of the re-factoring of this page that was going on so they aren't actually comments on the page. If you want to make them comments they should be placed in their relevant sections. What you are doing right now is creating a summary section, which is in its way a re-factoring. If user Jebbrady (who has precipitated this) has no issue with this then I'll shut up, otherwise this should be handled soon. Preekout 15:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just noting quickly that this is the generic "you" above -- I didn't create the section, just the contents.--SarekOfVulcan 15:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I could have worded that better but I did mean the generic "you" Preekout 15:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary by SarekofVulcan, broken down by section