David Gerard wrote:
I think I missed a reference, there.
<whisper>Look at the history of [[Sollog]] some time ...</whisper>
Ahhh. It becomes clear, now. Thank you.
I find that with a new, hotheaded but potentially sincere editor, commenting out a dubious addition (HTML comments - start "<!--" and end "-->" ), starting the comment with a request for a reference, produces better results than just deleting material. It gives them a better idea of the standard to work to.
That's exactly the sort of approach I'd favor (if I were to ever find myself in the position of deleting entire edits by others).
Besides, if their heads explode you'll have reduced the population of people introducing problematic edits into controversial articles.
I'd rather convert them into NPOV pushers ;-) The Arbitration Committee has recently reaffirmed that even the worst editors are to be regarded as theoretically redeemable!
In theory, there isn't any difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. (paraphrased from somewhere, source unknown)
. . . but I agree with the sentiment.
"WE DONOT THINK THAT YOU ZOG ACTIVIST" "So do you have a checkable reference for what your organization does believe?" "LOOK IT UP URSELF ASSWIP" "You put it in, you supply the reference. Statements with solid refs do stay in." *silence*
NPOV implies writing for the POV you don't agree with - I edit a lot on Scientology and neo-Nazi articles and try to keep my strong opinions on both topics in check and stick to the facts with references, ma'am - but there's a limit to how much of someone else's homework I can be bothered doing.
Great! That's the way it should . . . err, "ma'am"?
-- Chad