User talk:Slp1/Archive 13

Hawking

Great edits to Stephen Hawking. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the positive feedback! I'm slowly working through the text including expanding a bit based on the sources. If you or others had time to copy edit or do the famous "tightening" that would be great. I find it hard to do both things at once, somehow. --Slp1 (talk) 20:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Ha ha, the famous tightening. That gets me into a fair bit of trouble. :) I can't promise I'll look at it, but if I have time I'll take a quick run through, though if I do feel free to revert me. From what I saw, though, you're doing a sterling job. Some really nice flowing prose. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello Slp dear - are you still here after the Olivia Manning opus? Is it Steve H. you're after now? How yummy! I must go see :) All best for 2013 (ugh how time continues to continue, even after I've asked it to stop!) PiCo (talk) 12:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi PiCo! Good to hear from you! A belated Happy New Year to you too, and do come and give a hand on Stephen if you have time in your busy times with those Biblical articles (or is it biblical?) --Slp1 (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

		Best wishes for the New Year!
		Wishing you and yours a joyous, healthful, and productive 2013! Please accept a belated thank you for the well wishes upon my retirement as FAC delegate, and apologies for the false alarm of my first—and hopefully last—retirement; the well wishes extended me were most kind, but I decided to return, re-committed, when another blocked sock was revealed as one of the factors aggravating the FA pages this year. Maintaining standards in featured content requires vigilance, dedication and knowledge of people like you, who are needed; reviews are always welcome at FAC, FAR and TFA requests. Somehow, somehow we never ever seem to do nothin' completely nice and easy, but here's hoping that 2013 will see a peaceful road ahead and a return to the quality and comaraderie that defines the FA process, with the help of many dedicated Wikipedians! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		For your calm, graceful and above all, source-based handling of contentious issues on wikipedia, I award you one (1) Barnstar of Integrity. Never dismissive, always civil, constantly listening but never knuckling under. Huzzah! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

And, what the heck. Have a t-shirt. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I thought that you deserved something a bit extra for all of the amazing work you've done for the project. I've nominated you for a gift from the Wikimedia Foundation!

Wow, WLU. Thank you very much. I guess. It looks like the t-shirt business might be almost as scary a process as RFA! But I appreciate the nomination very much. Slp1 (talk) 02:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

ANI notification

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I'm dropping these templates on the talk pages of every user who has posted at Talk:Men's rights in the last two sections. This is not meant to imply that I necessarily find any of your edits problematic, and is simply meant to inform you. Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Palilalia

Hey! I got busy and haven't followed Hawking of late, but will check it sometime this week. Anyway, in the meantime ... last semester palilalia was mucked up by a student editor from some university course, who doesn't respond to talk entries (just edited for the first time in months without addressing queries), and without sources, it's difficult for me to fix. The problem is that the article now emphasizes palilalia as a speech disorder over palilalia as a tic ... I suspect because those are the only sources the student has. I'm unsure how to fix it without the sources ... perhaps you could dig in with me over there? The article in its current state is incorrect. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Mmm. To the best of my knowledge, palilalia was a neurologist's catch all term for speech disorders at one point, and then finally settled down to be mostly used for the Parkisonian speech. The use of the medical articles from the 1920s supports that. And that's apart from the tic thing. I will do what I can to help but am snowed under with one thing and another, including trying to plough my way through Hawking which is very slow going given the physics etc. I could get you the some of sources if that would help. Let me know, and I'll try and do my best too to get stuck in --Slp1 (talk) 22:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Not to worry ... Hawking is more important. I forgot about palilalia until it popped on my watchlist today. When I have a closer look, I'll ask you about sources if needed. Keep on keeping on! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

That's great. I've got distracted by J.C.P. Williams today, but can you blame me? It's a fascinating story. But I will get to Hawking and Palilalia shortly. In the meantime, if you let me know the sources you need, just let know and I will get what I can to you as poss. --Slp1 (talk) 03:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Notability versus significance

I cannot tell you how many times i made the same mistake, and then after correcting myself, got accused of digging for reasons to oppose some addition! "First you said it's non-notable, and now you say its insignificant? Abuse!" Someguy1221 (talk) 02:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

:) Slp1 (talk) 16:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

William Wilberforce

No worries. I had noticed the question of attribution, and had a look at the Ferens site before uploading, but saw nothing about the issue. I hadn't thought to look on the Talk page. Thanks for letting me know. Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 18:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Olivia Manning and the TLS

You may be all Olied-out, but if not, this from the TLS might interest you. Note the photo - Livy with TS Eliot no less! PiCo (talk) 07:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks really interesting, Pico. I knew about the new OUP bio, but not the Patten book, though not I'm not that surprised as she's written other things about the darling girl already cited in the article. I guess I've had to try and get the books at some point once they hit the libraries. But I do rather agree that I am somewhat wearied at the prospect- what a tiresome person she was at times.Slp1 (talk) 17:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Oops!

Sorry about accidentally deleting your post on ANI; not sure how that happened. I did get an edit-conflict with your post, but I could've sworn I opened a new page to post my reply, which shouldn't have overwritten yours... Writ Keeper (t + c) 17:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

No problem! It's happened to me -in that I've had the same problem- over and over again! --Slp1 (talk) 17:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Reverted your comment as discussion is closed

Slp1, just a quick note that I have reverted your comment as the discussion is closed due to it being the incorrect venue. Thank you. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 17:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I guess we were typing at the same time again. As I mentioned on your talkpage I don't agree that this was necessary or desirable as the discussion was not closed when I began my response, and I got no sign that the discussion had closed during the saving process. It was a good faith contribution made at the same time as you were making your good faith contributions, and there was no need for yours to "win out" over mine, really. It's not a big deal, but I just ask you to consider options of what could have happened if the situation ever arises again. Slp1 (talk) 17:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I suggest proposing a topic ban for Memills

He's been repeatedly reminded about the policies and guidelines pertaining to sources and he has refused to follow them. This has been going on for years. Viriditas (talk) 23:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I'd forgotten he was already topic banned for about 2 months at the end of last year for pretty much exactly this sort of editing.[1]. And he has been warned very regularly about other things since. However, as there are at least two good admins watching this article, I think and hope one or both of them will intervene in some way soon, without having to be asked. --Slp1 (talk) 12:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Advice [2] in addition to the original research and assumptions of bad faith (e.g., his "mission accomplished" comment). Looks like a pattern of violations of the terms of the article probation. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 00:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Non-Custodial Parents Party (Equal Parenting)

Dear Sir.

You have inferred that I would register a new WP name or have another person edit the page for me.

This is a gross insult.

I have requested that Binksternet remove the Non-Custodial Parents Party (Equal Parenting) from the Wikipdeia site altogether.

Regards

John Flanagan Australia

Hello. I am very sorry you saw it as an insult. It really was intended in exactly the way it was presented, as a word to the wise, just in case. I truly didn't want there to be any further issues for you here.

As far as removing the article is concerned, as CarrieVS has explained very well on your talkpage, there are various options available to you, but typically articles don't get deleted on request. If it is a notable topic (and this party has participated in multiple Australian elections, so it probably is) then in general WP will want to have an article on the subject. --Slp1 (talk) 11:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Controversial back at it

Hi, Slp1, In vue of your recent block, please note that this user is back at it, this time as 141.136.222.153. See

141.136.222.153 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)): newest incarnation with a.o. this

141.136.243.34 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)): blocked 31 hours 8-Apr-2013

141.136.240.224 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)): blocked 24 hours 7-Apr-2013

141.136.240.95 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)): blocked 31 hours 6-Apr-2013

141.136.248.67 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)): blocked 24 hours 5-Apr-2013

141.138.38.202 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)): blocked 24 hours 4-Apr-2013

141.136.222.121 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Pretty persistent. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 11:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

And apparently already taken care of. - DVdm (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Slp1. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CSDarrow (talk • contribs) 03:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

If you are able to perform the changes you described at the NPOVN regarding the Men's rights movement article, please do so. My recent revert of CSDarrow should not be construed as a vote for status quo, just as an indication that the SPLC material should be kept in some fashion. Binksternet (talk) 21:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Freedom of speech related copyedit help?

I was wondering if you'd be willing to help copy-edit Freedom for the Thought That We Hate?

It's an FAC candidate at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Freedom for the Thought That We Hate/archive1 and it seems there are some that feel it could use some polishing of prose a bit more.

I consulted 'How to find good copy-editors and you seem to know the topic of freedom of speech quite well.

Thanks for your consideration, — Cirt (talk) 20:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Men's Rights Movement

Per WP:ONUS the responsibility lies with the person adding the info to provide the source, not the person wanting a contentious statement cited. It's not my responsibility to scour the listed sources to try and find where it may be cited elsewhere. Per CITE "such things as quotations and particularly controversial statements should be supported by citations even in the lead.". You should want this, as it would reduce the chance of someone removing that line thinking it's an unsourced libellous statement. Since you apparently know where this info is already cited, why wouldn't YOU simply add the citations that are already in the article up to the lead? --TheTruthiness (talk) 21:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

You seem to think the misogeny info is contentious and maybe even libellous and defametory; but apparently not enough to glance down the article or search for the word misogeny to find out more? How odd. --Slp1 (talk) 22:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

It would be rather difficult since "misogeny" isn't a word. What's odd about following policy? You claim that statement has sources out the wazoo but can't be bothered to actually cite them as policy dictates? How odd. You're upset with someone following Wikipedia policy? How odd. --TheTruthiness (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

But they are cited. Where they are supposed to be. In the article. And you, with your superior spelling, could easily have found them if you had chosen to. You are the one who thinks this statement is so contentious and libellous etc that it needs a citation in the lead. Nobody else seems to agree with you, but that's okay. However, you'd still rather tag it (twice) than check out the facts or fix the issue yourself. That's certainly your decision to make, but not exactly constructive or collaborative in the long term. I think this conversation has reached its end, don't you? --Slp1 (talk) 22:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Legacy

closed discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Slp1, you've been REFACTORed a bit on that Cleveland talk page, and I can't say I disagree with it. Then again, I generally don't refactor a lot so I'm not sure. At any rate, the refactorer alerted me to their refactoring; they considered your comment to be an attempt to embarrass Legacypac. Now, I got little love for Legacypac, but their BLP BAN is probably very much a death sentence for them, and I don't think we should be rubbing it in. And whoever closes that proposal will know the BLP score anyway. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC) Thanks for stopping by, I missed this comment earlier. It wasn't my intention to embarass Legacypac, or to rub anything in, but as stated in my post to alert the closer to the fact that a prominent commentator in that thread, which is principally about BLP policy, had been topic banned for chronically misunderstanding it. If you really think that the closer will be aware of that then there is no need for my note. I personally have my doubts, but whatever. However, I note that another comment which has absolutely nothing to do with LegacyPac was also removed, and I will be restoring that for sure. As you can probably divine, I personally think that the refactorer is also in need of some advice from admins about their editing. Maybe you can keep an eye yourself. --Slp1 (talk) 14:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC) Slp1, when Drmies said, "And whoever closes that proposal will know the BLP score anyway", I'm sure he meant that the closer will obviously recognize any comments that violate BLP policy and therefore disregard them. Yes, Legacy has made a lot of mistakes, and I've told him so, but pointing out his ban and adding the part about his "chronic failure to understand BLP policy" was unnecessary, inappropriate, and uncivil by any reasonable measurement. If Legacy posted any comments that violated BLP policy, it is those comments that should've been dealt with, rather than someone injecting what amounts to a gravedancing insult. And instead of making vague, unsubstantiated comments about my being "in need of advice" about my editing, I suggest you follow the proper protocol to report me if you feel I've violated any polices or guidelines or have otherwise crossed any lines. You and I obviously disagree on the issues with regard to that article's title, but I'd ask that you keep your baseless allegations to yourself unless you're going to provide proof and report them in the proper manner. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC) I've found generally that the middle of a dispute is not the best time to point out in detail the problematic nature of another editor's edits or indeed to list one's observations to others. Requesting some outside eyes, unbiased by detailed complaints, is preferred. Maybe they will see what I see, maybe not, but that's the purpose of asking for another's opinion. I now understand where you are coming from with Legacypac, so hope you will try and understand where I am coming from too. The problem isn't that Legacypac may have made "comments that violated BLP policy" in the discussion -you are right they should have been dealt with already- but that since he has been found not to have a good understanding of BLP policy, his opinions on BLP matters have to be given appropriate weight. If somebody gets topicbanned for repeated copyright violations, we don't give their opinions about what is and what is not a copyright violation much weight either. I hope that helps. Slp1 (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC) I kinda wish I had started a thread on their BLP understanding while they made that lack clear on the Boston Marathon bombings article. Drmies (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC) Slp1... First, I'll ask you again to stop making these vague, unsubstantiated allegations ("problematic nature of another editor's edits") about my editing. You make a lot of claims without backing them up with any proof. And to say that it's best not to address alleged problems at the time they are occurring makes no sense at all. That is precisely the time to deal with them. It is clear that we vehemently disagree on the content issue at that article, so obviously your opinions about my editing cannot be seen as unbiased. Again, if you have proof that I've broken any "rules" or crossed any lines, show us the diffs or report it. Otherwise, please stop the rhetoric with nothing to back up what you're saying. Regarding Legacy... again, it doesn't matter at all if he's topic-banned because any comments he's made will obviously stand on their own merits. Someone being topic-banned doesn't invalidate all of their prior comments, so you really need to discontinue this "appropriate weight" rationale. If you believe that any of Legacy's comments in that thread (in which you inserted the comment about his topic ban) violate BLP, please show us the diffs to support that assertion. Otherwise, let it go. I see that as an insult to the closer's ability to judge the content s/he's reviewing. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 17:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC) Excuse me? I specifically point out that because I am involved in a content dispute with you, I am not listing my concerns when requesting outside eyes and you come back with "obviously your opinions about my editing cannot be seen as unbiased". Doh? That's exactly what I said and what I did. You have opinions that differ from from mine on a number of issues but they are just opinions, not some sort of black and white situation where there is some sort of divinely ordained right or wrong. I am very tired of you telling me that I am wrong, or what I should think and do. Please don't edit this page again. Thank you.Slp1 (talk) 18:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

goldblum article and user:Nomoskedasticity

slp1 - i left a note on the goldblum talk expressing my concerns on your removal of information from the goldblum article. right after i did that, user:Nomoskedasticity (i have put him in wikilinks so he will know this is being written) told me to 'look further down', but i was clueless as to what he meant, so i asked him. he explained that at the ani board, there was indeed discussion of the edit in question.

i found it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=555452124#Please_remove_defamatory_content_from_a_BLP_currently_under_full_protection

of course, Nomoskedasticity is the one who brought it there, but alas, neglected to inform the editor who placed the edit in question in the first place (me) and neglected to inform other editors who are involved in that edit's history. i am pretty sure that ani rules say you must inform them, no? so how can a decision be made without input from relevant parties? and lastly, is this sanctionable? user Nomoskedasticity is constantly being rude, using foul language and threatening. i read npa carefully, but it doesn't seem sanctionable, either. what to do? Soosim (talk) 08:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't mention any other editor and didn't ask for sanctions against an editor; the only concern was content of a protected page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for giving the wrong link to ANI. Nomoskedasticity didn't name any editors or ask for sanctions against anybody, so there was no requirement for notification. I agree that it would have been better if they had at least let Amatulic know, though, which is why I left a message with them myself. Anyway, taking a quick look at the talkpage there, I am very happy to see the way you have been working to develop a text that takes into account the concerns of other editors: I think the replacement of the specific comments by "insults" is brilliant and solves lots of the issues. I realize that it is frustrating at times but keep up the good work!Slp1 (talk) 12:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

thank you slp1. two things: I am just about the only one on the talk offering constructive ideas, and just keep getting shot down by two specific editors (nomos and rasti). I would be happy to see you or amatu take a shot at it as well, since neither nomo nor rasti like anything I have to say. the second thing has to do with nomos in particular - the ani page is quite clear about having to notify an involved editor. sure, you can say that it wasn't about me personally, just my edit. seems like semantics, no? also, ani is also very clear about where to go for discussions like this (edit warring, page protection, long term abuse, requests for oversight, etc. - strange again, no? Soosim (talk) 12:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I appreciate that you are trying, but please give it some time. Nomo hasn't even responded to your proposal and I think Rastignac has some good points about the few/some etc. I've just added another English language source which provides additional details which will probably help you guys figure out something appropriate.Slp1 (talk) 13:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)ANI instructions: "You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion." Soosim was not the subject of a discussion. Even the edit I linked was not Soosim's edit. Apart from that: Soosim is a compulsive POV-pusher in the Israel/Palestine topic area, a judgment that requires looking beyond the calm demeanor. It's a long term sort of thing, whatever the outcome is for this particular issue at Goldblum. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've hung around on the periphery of Israel/Palestine dispute resolution, so am quite aware of the POVs involved. In this case, however I see Soosim making some constructive suggestions that address at least one of your specific concerns, and suspect that with some massaging something neutral, informative and BLP compliant can be worked out. It is good for everybody to engage to make sure that happens, as ideally it can help model the need for this to happen first, without any drama. Slp1 (talk) 14:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

IRS teaparty investigation

We seem to have consensus on talk to name this article 2013 IRS scandal. There is widespread agreement that this is not solely about the teaparty and that the media is using "IRS scandal" as opposed to "Teaparty investigation". Can you redirect if appropriate and you agree? Capitalismojo (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC) Hi, I had a look and it doesn't seem to be totally decided yet. I think it may need to wait a while.--Slp1 (talk) 19:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Masculism

Slp1, please explain why you did not violate WP:1RR with these two reverts (the first consists of two consecutive edits and the second consists of a single edit): [3] and [4]. My guess is the second revert was a continuation of the first, but there was an intervening edit by another user and a roughly 8-minute interval beween your second edit of the first revert and your second revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for asking. It's a bit of an odd thing. The actual probation message says "Any editor reverting the same or similar material twice in any 24 hour period (+/-) is subject to being blocked without warning." I reverted different material each time. Having said that this formulation isn't what I have typically understood about 1RR, and I was in my mind doing a series of edits in a row that would consist of a single edit. I didn't notice the edit by the other editor when I hit save (and got no edit conflict warning), but as soon as I noticed I stopped editing the article. Perhaps I should have reverted, but based on the actual wording of the probation, and since all the material was different, it didn't seem necessary to go that far. --Slp1 (talk) 11:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Fascinating. I have such a deeply imbedded understanding of 1RR that I did not even notice the inherent contradiction between the policy and the implmentation at Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation, which, in turn, has been carried over into the edit notices. Based on that and your additional explanation, blocking you would be unwarranted. But I'd like to address the contradiction and resolve it. As far as I can tell, the consensus at WP:AN in April was to impose a normal 1RR, not a modified one. Therefore, I believe Dennis should not have used a sentence that does not reflect 1RR. I will contact Dennis and see about changing the probation page and the edit notices. My guess is it was unintentional, but I need to make sure he didn't have something in mind that I'm unaware of.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I would be very glad if you would clarify it with Dennis. I noticed a couple of weeks ago that the wording seemed a bit odd, but thought there might be something special about 1RR restrictions that I didn't know about. I almost asked Dennis about it myself, but was still trying to figure things out. So yes, I think it would be very good to clear this up so that it is not confusing to anybody. Slp1 (talk) 12:19, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Had to go digging to find that. WP:1RR doesn't differentiate sequential edits or reverts that are unrelated. It points back to 3RR for guidance, which says "whether involving the same or different material", so technically, two reverts that are completely unrelated in content are still a violation of WP:1RR and must be avoided. Reading back through the original discussion, it seems to be a proposal for a textbook 1RR restriction and not a modified one. I have modified the Page Notice to better reflect this, as it previously seemed to support a 1RR rule that isn't supported by policy. My opinion here is that this ambiguity is at fault, and not the editor, so no action should be taken. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 12:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Correct on all points. Do you plan on changing the probation page as well as other edit notices?--Bbb23 (talk) 12:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. Had to reboot the server here, kept timing out. Sorry about the confusion I caused here. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 13:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks all. It's also been a bit of a lesson to me about how an intervening edit can create a problem for editors: I wanted to give good edit summary explanations for each change, but in some ways a large general revert is safer in avoiding problems if another editor makes an edit in between when one is not looking. It's too bad, in a way. Slp1 (talk) 13:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Funny, I'm a very active patroller of WP:ANEW, and yet I've never thought about "good edit summary explanations for each change" as an issue. My guess is very few editors are as thoughtful and deliberate in their editing as you are. I do take into account, though, temporal proximity if there is an intervening edit.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)