daniwo59(a)aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 5/6/2004 1:04:49 AM Eastern Standard
Time,
charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com writes:
>would find it easier to believe that Wik and I are
on the same side, if I
could edit down the bloated [[1920 in Germany]] page without
reverts from
him and 172,
So teh problem with Wik is that he is long winded?
No, this is source material, I am told. I queried the source on the Talk
page, and got no answer (I was told about this indirectly, by someone else).
So, Point One, no answer from Wik about the reasonable request about the
source of 49 K pasted with little format into WP.
I added the headings on the page. Dammit, I'm interested in the content. I
made some editorial cuts, and Wik reverted them on the 'grounds' that "We
have enough space''.
So, Point Two, 32K pages are an ideal maximum for some browsers.
Point Three - 'We?'. Is that the editorial we, the royal we, or what? I
think this is just to impose.
Point Four, no reply to my comments on the talk page about this.
And then when I edited some more, 172 says the cuts were excessive. Hardly.
And he's an academic historian. The stuff shows huge POV, and the length is
such that concision work should be welcomed. Not all this 'you propose, we
dispose by revert' stuff; with nil engagement on the talk page.
That page is turgid to a fault, and should be edited without this sort of
arrogance.
Charles