Talk:Cynthia Bailey/Archive 1

A photo of Cynthia?

Could someone put one up? The ones in the article are of other people.--A21sauce (talk) 19:37, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Third editor wanted

Hi, Aoba47 and I are arguing over word choice and the necessity of repeating cites. Can someone intervene? Taking it off copy editor noticeboard for now.--A21sauce (talk) 20:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What's the dispute? The article has been almost completely rewritten since I last looked at it. --Ronz (talk) 23:12, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My advice to both editors is to have more discussion on the talk page and less through edit summaries. Also, when an editor requests a copy-edit, it is usually best to wait for the copy-edit to be completed before adjusting those edits. The talk page is a good place to raise questions and state objections to ongoing edits. Jumping in to change something one minute after a partial copy-edit is a good way to have edit conflicts and to cause frustration for everyone involved. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:52, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Aoba47, got that?--A21sauce (talk) 15:24, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In response to @Jonesey95:, I rarely interrupt a copy-edit from the GOCE. I did so in this case because the copy-edit being done was bad. It introduced a number of errors to the article. Common words like "American" were being linked. The lead had multiple links, such as The Real Housewives of Atlanta. Citations were deleted from sentences without insuring the information is still supported. The first two points are clear examples of Wikipedia:OVERLINK being introduced to the article. An example of my third point is this sentence (Bailey was born on February 19, 1967, in Decatur, Alabama and raised in Tuscumbia.). Prior to the copy-edit, two citations were used to support the birthday and the two Alabama locations, and now only citation is present. The one citation only supports the birthday, which leaves the Alabama part unsupported. The copy-editor removed citations due to "overcite", but I do not believe that any of those instances really constituted WP:OVERCITE. I also took issue with the actual prose copy-edit. One example was this part (and was a key figure the reality television show The Real Housewives of Atlanta.) introduced into the article by the copy-editor. It has two mistakes as it should not be "was" as Bailey is still on the show and the "key figure" part seems to border on POV issues and is vague (i.e. "key figure" could mean anything). I did not take issue with the copy-edit because it went against my preferences (as the copy-editor tried to redirect with this message "Why did you even list this for copy editors when you have a particular sense of what the copy should be?"). I brought up the above points to disprove that idea and show how the copy-edit went against Wikipedia policy and the MOS. Aoba47 (talk) 16:33, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I found the copy-editor's decision to tag me as "contentious" on the GOCE to be unnecessary. That kind of action does not indicate a willingness to have any open discussion. If one looks through the article's edit history, one will notice that the editor Jimblackler restructured the article completely, and I thanked them for it by leaving a message on their talk page. I would not consider that a sign that I am "contentious". Aoba47 (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the above. This most recent set of paragraphs is the sort of constructive contribution to a discussion that both editors would have done well to engage in, in good faith, instead of engaging in a series of quick reverts. When an editor believes that another editor is changing an article in a way that violates a WP guideline, posting a message on the article's talk page like "The first two points are clear examples of Wikipedia:OVERLINK being introduced to the article" is a good first step. Overlinking in an article is not an emergency that needs to be remedied right away; it is always possible that the editor who is apparently violating some guideline(s) has an overarching plan that will become clear when their edits are complete. It is also possible, of course, that the editor making those changes is unaware of the guidelines, or is making mistakes. Asking a question instead of reverting and edit warring is a way to assume good faith and help an editor learn in a constructive way.

Please note that I have not reviewed any of the edits to this article, so I am not passing judgement on the content of either editor's edits; I am merely communicating my hard-won wisdom about a better way to resolve editing questions and disputes. I have been in the shoes of both editors in this dispute, and I have found that it is better to start from a place of curiosity and education. YMMV, naturally. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:50, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, I will be more aware of starting a discussion. I just do not appreciate being painted as the person completely in the wrong or the bad guy or being referred to as “contentious”. This will be my last edit on this thread as I have no further interest in this article and I will be taking a long wikibreak. Aoba47 (talk) 17:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]