Talk:Psychiatric assistance dog: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
:::It's far too much trouble for me to try and figure out who was right or wrong in their edits, though I admit it was mostly [[User:PSDS]] who was making the edit summary comments in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Psychiatric_service_dog&action=history history]. In any case, I believe I was reasonably frustrated to find the article in complete shambles when I logged on this morning, and if my frustration showed, I apologize only so far as to relieve any hard feelings. Cheers, '''''[[User:Sarranduin|<font color="#FF007F">Sarrandúin</font>]]''' <sup>[ [[User Talk:Sarranduin|<font color="#7171C6">Talk</font>]] + [[Special:Contributions/Sarranduin|<font color="FF0000">Contribs</font>]] ]</sup>'' 18:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC) |
:::It's far too much trouble for me to try and figure out who was right or wrong in their edits, though I admit it was mostly [[User:PSDS]] who was making the edit summary comments in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Psychiatric_service_dog&action=history history]. In any case, I believe I was reasonably frustrated to find the article in complete shambles when I logged on this morning, and if my frustration showed, I apologize only so far as to relieve any hard feelings. Cheers, '''''[[User:Sarranduin|<font color="#FF007F">Sarrandúin</font>]]''' <sup>[ [[User Talk:Sarranduin|<font color="#7171C6">Talk</font>]] + [[Special:Contributions/Sarranduin|<font color="FF0000">Contribs</font>]] ]</sup>'' 18:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC) |
||
::::Yes, I can understand your frustration and I apologize for my part in it. |
::::Yes, I can understand your frustration and I apologize for my part in it. |
||
Allow me to clarify my perspective on the editing issue. First and foremost, when federal law is quoted, it needs to be quoted ACCURATELY. Second, there are many different tasks and functions that are utilized by a large community of PSD handlers. To express one's opinion about someone else's task list is NOT appropriate for this article. All relevent tasks and functions have the right to be represented in this article. Third, removing a link to someone else's organization simply because you don't like the organization is inappropriate. There is room for everyone to have a link to their respective webpages. More than anything else, we need to reflect information ACCURATELY. Opinion, conjecture, or misrepresenting yourself as an attorney or a federal judge is intellectually dishonest. ACCURACY is what everyone should strive for. Sincerely, Dr. Joan Esnayra, founder of the Psychiatric Service Dog therapeutic model since 1997. |
Revision as of 00:03, 1 February 2007
There have been several reverts/edits on this page. It appears that there are two very different POVs involved here. Can we agree on a final edit, or do we need to bring in a wikipedia mediator? Ideally we can resolve this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.226.15.78 (talk • contribs) 07:29, January 31, 2007 (UTC)
- I can see no way either of you involved in that edit war saw it helping the article in any way. It is obvious that "winning" was the only goal here, and to that point, both of you have violated the three-revert rule, marred the edit history with ugly comments, and made me wonder at what reasoning was involved in making an article that totally repeats several paragraphs. -- Sarrandúin [ Talk + Contribs ] 15:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- What ugly comments were made? Please let me know, because I never added anything to the text other than information on the topic.
- I was unaware of the three-revert rule before this morning, and I sincerely apologize for violating it.
- As for winning being the only goal - I felt that the back and forth reverting was going nowhere, which is why I left a note for the other contributor to look at the talk page and then asked if we could agree on a final edit. It seems like there are two POVs (remaining neutral on this topic is difficult) but I think both POVs can be represented fairly in an article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.226.15.235 (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC).
- It's far too much trouble for me to try and figure out who was right or wrong in their edits, though I admit it was mostly User:PSDS who was making the edit summary comments in the history. In any case, I believe I was reasonably frustrated to find the article in complete shambles when I logged on this morning, and if my frustration showed, I apologize only so far as to relieve any hard feelings. Cheers, Sarrandúin [ Talk + Contribs ] 18:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I can understand your frustration and I apologize for my part in it.
- It's far too much trouble for me to try and figure out who was right or wrong in their edits, though I admit it was mostly User:PSDS who was making the edit summary comments in the history. In any case, I believe I was reasonably frustrated to find the article in complete shambles when I logged on this morning, and if my frustration showed, I apologize only so far as to relieve any hard feelings. Cheers, Sarrandúin [ Talk + Contribs ] 18:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Allow me to clarify my perspective on the editing issue. First and foremost, when federal law is quoted, it needs to be quoted ACCURATELY. Second, there are many different tasks and functions that are utilized by a large community of PSD handlers. To express one's opinion about someone else's task list is NOT appropriate for this article. All relevent tasks and functions have the right to be represented in this article. Third, removing a link to someone else's organization simply because you don't like the organization is inappropriate. There is room for everyone to have a link to their respective webpages. More than anything else, we need to reflect information ACCURATELY. Opinion, conjecture, or misrepresenting yourself as an attorney or a federal judge is intellectually dishonest. ACCURACY is what everyone should strive for. Sincerely, Dr. Joan Esnayra, founder of the Psychiatric Service Dog therapeutic model since 1997.