Talk:Torksey Castle: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
What are you describing as Peacok , I am also sorry you think there is a copyright issue, but the article was rewritten, not a composite copy. |
What are you describing as Peacok , I am also sorry you think there is a copyright issue, but the article was rewritten, not a composite copy. |
||
I also feel you are missing out a great deal of factual information, through your rewrite, and also I do not feel your version is very Gramitical, nor do I believe it even conforms to as you say to the "style manual", afterall there are great many articles written like mine, and there has never been any issue over it. |
I also feel you are missing out a great deal of factual information, through your rewrite, and also I do not feel your version is very Gramitical, nor do I believe it even conforms to as you say to the "style manual", afterall there are great many articles written like mine, and there has never been any issue over it. |
||
Whatsmore what |
Whatsmore what I think you describe as Peacock terms, are infact, facts, they explain, the lack of uncertainty, and offer reasoned conjectures, that infact are common amongst Architectural history and terminology. |
||
This is why I am reverting to thr original until such time as this can be resolved. |
This is why I am reverting to thr original until such time as this can be resolved. |
||
Revision as of 16:46, 21 December 2008
Edits
Redpathanderson - hey, it's good to meet you. Could you detail your issues with my edits? - I would like to have this article conform to our layout guidelines and style manual, along with such policies as avoid peacock terms. Thanks --Neutralitytalk 05:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Also, I looked at the external links [1] and [2] and there are several passages given verbatim without quotation marks or other attribution in the article, which is certainly a copyright violations...This needs to be addressed and I think my edits go a little bit toward doing that (although now that I am aware of these sources, I'll work on sourcing and eliminating the copyvio). Neutralitytalk 05:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
What are you describing as Peacok , I am also sorry you think there is a copyright issue, but the article was rewritten, not a composite copy.
I also feel you are missing out a great deal of factual information, through your rewrite, and also I do not feel your version is very Gramitical, nor do I believe it even conforms to as you say to the "style manual", afterall there are great many articles written like mine, and there has never been any issue over it.
Whatsmore what I think you describe as Peacock terms, are infact, facts, they explain, the lack of uncertainty, and offer reasoned conjectures, that infact are common amongst Architectural history and terminology.
This is why I am reverting to thr original until such time as this can be resolved.
I also feel that in this and many cases, the style manual as you put it, there's needs for room to manuover given the differing needs of articles.
Other issues I have with your rewrite, include, a lack of categorization, in the relevent historical areas.(which incidentally are common amongst many articles). An over simplification of the entire article, reducing the ammount of information pertinent to the subjects. The new article reads more like a list of things, copied and pasted from the external links, which where themsleves overly simplified. This and many other issues.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Redpathanderson (talk • contribs) 11:44, December 21, 2008