I welcome any message of thanks, point of view or critique.
Hi Adam37, I just wanted to let you know that I have autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! œ™ 13:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)the "
Recent copyedit on Fifth Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies
I recently reverted a copyedit by you on Fifth Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies on the basis that the edits did not overall improve the article. Aside from some cosmetic copyediting, you introduced a number of grammatical constructions that simply do not make sense, and as I suspect this will be contested, I wanted to give a few examples:
- "The Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland announced in 2006 that minor changes to seats would take place as to the east of the province (such as Belfast)"
- This is not proper grammar. The previous construction was absolutely fine, but simply replacing "as to" with "in" would be better than this.
- "Greater London was reviewed borough-by-borough – some were "paired" i.e. see a straddling seat or more to ensure that the sizes of the electorates are not overly disparate, that is little malapportionment due to demographic change."
- I genuinely have no idea what this sentence is now trying to communicate.
- The "or more" means "or more than one"; this is implicit. Slow down and read, please. The latter is a technical term so wikilinked and enframes a much more complex idea.
- "This net increase of 4 constituencies resulted in an overall increase, as approximately preset by statutory quota, in the number of Westminster constituencies from 646 to 650 for the 2010 general election."
- I just don't know what the italicised section is saying.
- The quota did not derive from personal preference of the Commission. It was set by law.
In general, "seat" is not a synonym for "constituency" - a constituency is a geographical construction: a set of borders on a map describing a particular geographic area. A "seat" is an MPs place in the House of Commons. The two are similar but different but there are places where you have introduced "seat" in place of "constituency" and it just doesn't work.
Overall, I don't like to revert an edit where only part of it is particularly problematic, but there were so many poor changes introduced by that edit I felt that I didn't have much choice.
More concerningly, this appears to be something of a pattern - I happened to be reading Faraday Building earlier and the grammar was very confusing, to the point where I had to go back through the edit history to try and establish what was the article was trying to say. I saw that you had recently copyedited that article as well.
- Oh well perhaps you are beholden to your own style. Your style doesn't rule the roost and you are clearly too easily ruffled as that was virtually fine and better in fewer unnecessary bytes too, per the "fluff" essay. I hope you get what I'm talking about. This not a vivid wp:BASICENGLISH journalese article penned by the BBC for those who might be young teenagers but might occasionally require reaching for a dictionary or look-up for that particular audience where succinctly putting across the best terms on a technical subject. If one wants a more basic rendering then Basic English wikipedia exists. Few people know this.- Adam37 Talk 06:18, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
I am quite sure that you have the absolute best of intentions, evidenced by your frequent references to various policies and guidelines in your edit summaries, but the simple problem is that your edits are not always an improvement and sometimes are reducing the quality of articles. I might gently suggest that where you are amending the syntax of a sentence, you read and re-read what you have written as though you were an outsider trying to read the article for the first time, and try and establish whether what you have written would make immediate sense to someone else. ninety:one (reply on my talk) 22:21, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Ninetyone. Again save bytes. It makes much more sense for me to reply here. I will take up your points even if they do not represent brevity. Which to many minds has a beauty all of its own.- Adam37 Talk 06:18, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Adam can you remember WP:CIVIL with regards to edit summaries? "Nonsense", "claptrap" - this is passing judgement on editors who had their own reason to phrase things as they did. In some cases your edits are not improvements, they're just tinkering. Be more open to working with other editors, please. doktorb wordsdeeds 07:55, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- OK OK. I will tone them down. But "subsequently" for a chronologically listed extra legal change. Isn't that obvious? Isn't equal representation a terrible bowdlerisation. How is never pairing with a mainland "equal". I have no doubt people write on here eloquently, and we have high quality states of all of these articles, but the petty "tinkering" or rather "non-WP:BIAS" I would stress I put in adds far more. After all, are we dragging stuff out? Are we in the business of lying? I do hope not, for I have also been guilty of that especially in earlier years. It is all to easy to get into that kind of business without knowing it, often regurgitating the sort of vague sophistry the "en vogue" top press gurus abound with.- Adam37 Talk 08:11, 5 June 2021 (UTC)