80.4.39.7

About my Incorrect Revision

Yeah, sorry about that, I usually don't trust information added by an IP address without saying anything in the edit summary (I honestly believe WP should make edit summaries a requirement). Thanks for the heads up and sorry about the inconvenience! --RazorICE 10:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Vaccine controversy

People do have other things to do in life besides Wikipedia, including sleeping, eating, and going to work. Talk pages are an inbox, not a beckon call, and in my personal experience, I've found that editors will seldom drop whatever it is they're in the middle of — especially not if it would mean leaving an article a half-finished mess — and reply to you immediately if you post on their Talk pages. It never hurts to excercise patience.

Large, verbatim quotes generally are not recommended, as they border on WP:COPY violations, break the flow of an article, do not conform to encyclopaedic tone, and are often seen as stretching WP:NPOV too much in certain contexts. Paraphrasing is always preferable per summary style. Also, I'd recommend proposing your edits on an article's talk page first, especially on contentious issues, where building consensus is even more important. -Severa (!!!) 00:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope you do not mind the observation that none of the above appears justification for deleting an edit. Especially when:-

• that has been done without comment
• an experienced editor who first reverted acknowledged he had done that in error and recognised the validity of the edit
• an experienced editor like you could have easily edited the entry - if that is possible - which seems difficult as it already seems to be part of a summary of a 5-6000 word journal paper
• when another anon who's ID has the appearance of a sock-puppet and who just as you have done once, had been repeatedly reverting the edit

Further, this is not a large verbatim quote. The extent of the quote is also appropriate in the circumstances. It does not violate any copyright and is well within accepted academic standards internationally.

There is no flow of an article to break as it was in a section specifically existing to set out the findings of relevant studies. There appears to be no WP:NPOV issue as the study it references is one of a number listed and it is a journal paper being cited.

If you feel that paraphrasing is appropriate for something that is already a paraphrase of a 5-6000 or so word paper then you are welcome to edit. If you might be kind enough to acknowledge that wholesale deletion of the edits of others is not a constructive action in building an encyclopedia that could assist resolution. Perhaps on this occasion it was an oversight.

With respects to your strongly held views, there appears nothing contentious about citing the conclusions of a journal paper especially when this is amongst the citations of other journal papers. There was also nothing to indicate anyone thought this was contentious - you, for example, simply deleted the edit without explanation. Hopefully you will agree that makes it impossibly difficult to know what objection anyone else may have.

Regarding your comments about dropping everything, your deletion took place half a day ago. You have been editing throughout the day. There is no issue of dropping everything. Further, if you undertake a destructive action, you need to consider explaining yourself as a matter of courtesy and priority. Thank you for now having done so.

I will revert your earlier reversion and may I suggest you edit the contribution in line with how you see the entry as an appropriate form of encyclopedic entry. I may have more trouble doing so than you and you appear to indicate you can see how that can be done. Accordingly, by your own account, you appear to be suggesting a superior position to carry out the task, and having deleted the entry once seem to have strong views in the matter and hence an incentive to attempt the task.

80.4.39.7 01:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I have posted a general comment about reverts, and the need to explain them, here.Ferrylodge 01:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Ferrylodge. There is also further dialogue on the matter here [[1]].

80.4.39.7 11:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk page

80.4.39.7, I actually just realized that this isn't your user Talk page, but your user page. The first user to post a message here, User:RazorICE, must have mistakenly posted here, rather than on your talk page, which would've been a redlink at the time. A userpage is sort of your own personal space, where you can post a little bit about yourself, like interests or articles you like editing. So you might want to cut-and-paste these messages to User talk:80.4.39.7, which is actually your user talk page, so that you can free up your user page for any edits you might want to make to it. -Severa (!!!) 12:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)