Talk:Ugandan Bush War

Preservation and reversion of edits by user:2605:6000:EF43:8500:C9E2:9F24:ED0:E6B2

Hi. Thanks everyone for contributing! @2605:6000:EF43:8500:C9E2:9F24:ED0:E6B2:, @TheSandDoctor:, @Field Marshal Aryan:. After this user's initial edits, which were reverted, and the reversion of which was itself reverted by this user, they went on to make several small edits, primarily in regards to the use of acronyms for the various parties involved. I reverted the article to my last version and took those subsequent edits by this user that appear to be constructive and incorporated them into the edit I just made. I don't know if another post on this user's page is warranted. If anyone has any feedback for me when such a situation comes up in the future. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 00:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Actions of user:2605:6000:EF43:8500:C9E2:9F24:ED0:E6B2

Thank you Informata ob Iniquitatum for acknowledging our work. i just wanted to ask that was this user (user:2605:6000:EF43:8500:C9E2:9F24:ED0:E6B2) deliberately causing errors or was it an honest mistake? And also if this page might require additional protection? Thank you! Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 08:21, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@Field Marshal Aryan:, thanks again for contribution. So, I had come to the page by way of the "Random article" link, and I did some CU on the section on the war. He reverted them and then went on to make several other edits. I undid his reversion and I went through his edits, and I think the only one I didn't retain in the later version, which is referenced above, is the lede.

He had changed "After defeat in what he (Museveni) called fradulent elections..." to "Museveni believed that his defeat was caused by fraud." This is because wp articles should not assert what his beliefs are. Who knows what they are? On the other hand, the things he said and did can be verified. Otherwise, I think most of his edits were removals of acronyms, which I retained, and changes to the Human rights section that I largely left intact.

I explained what I did in the discussion on WP:MIL that he had created complaining about WP:OWN. It seems like its more a behavioral issue, than vandalism, but I would prefer someone else to make that call, same with your question on additional protection.

Any feedback from yourself or other editors is welcome. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 23:49, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

You grossly misstated what you did, as I've proven on the project discussion page.

This discussion here is proof-positive that some of you exercise ownership of this article and are adamantly opposed to changes that any decent editor would describe as "needed improvements." This is being discussed at the project so that dispassionate editors can see what is going on here. 2605:6000:EF43:8500:2495:1C68:1484:2E8C (talk) 05:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@2605:6000:EF43:8500:2495:1C68:1484:2E8C:: Hi, thanks for responding. If I misstated what I did, grossly or otherwise, I assure you it was unintentional. Could you please be specific, and link the changes to which you are referring?

I have only one goal: to see WP improve. Most of your edits seem perfectly in line with that goal. I've only taken issue with a couple of your changes and I think I spelled out very clearly why I took issue with them.

Can I suggest that you create a user account for yourself? I think you will find a better reception toward your edits in general.

Could I also suggest that you consider the tone and content of your comments. Even in this dialogue, a blanket accusation that I "grossly misstated" my changes, without any direct references to what you're referring, is not at all constructive and not in keeping with what is expected of members of the WP community.

Thanks again for contributing. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 19:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Suggested improvement to Human rights abuses section

Hi, and thanks everyone for contributing! I'm not going to be making any more reversions on this page per advise from a more experienced editor. However I would suggest that either @2605:6000:ef43:8500:2495:1c68:1484:2e8c: or another editor consider addressing the following edit:

• Original: "The ranks of the UNLA included many ethnic Acholi and Lango, who had themselves been the victims of Amin's genocidal purges in northern Uganda. Despite this, under Obote, the UNLA targeted civilians and subjected(this was a typo in the original, corrected here) them to abuses, reminiscent of Amin's own."

• New: "The ranks of the UNLA included many ethnic Acholi and Lango, who had themselves been the victims of Amin's genocidal purges in northern Uganda. Despite this, the UNLA under Obote targeted and abused civilians, reminiscent of Amin's own abuses."

The two problems with the second passage, and the reason the original was a better choice of words are

• a) The abuses to which the civilians were subjected are the things that are reminiscent of Amin's own (abuses). The new version is grammatically incorrect. The new version is lacking a noun that is reminiscent of Amin's own abuses. Reminiscent is an adjective and can only modify a noun. In the New version, that noun has been changed to the verb "to abuse" which cannot be modified by an adjective.
• b) The same sentence contains abused and abuses, that's poor word choice.

Thanks Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2017 (UTC)