User talk:2601:196:180:DC0:64EF:37F5:991A:5023

Welcome!

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Dorothy Kilgallen! If you are interested in continuing to edit, I suggest you create an account to gain additional privileges. Happy editing! Eric ^talk 21:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello again- The above is a standard template message. If you edit under a username, it makes it easier to communicate on topics such as the "gossip column" link. Eric ^talk 21:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your welcome. But there is absolutely no reason why one’s “privileges” (as granted a priori) to make simple, responsible, constructive edits should be in any way infringed by not being a registered user. On any number of reasonable and rational grounds.

In this instance, Dorothy Kilgallen WAS a gossip columnist, fundamentally. And is listed among gossip columnist at the Wikipedia article on the subject. Moreover, other editors, including the one that reverted my first edit, found it completely acceptable to have a link to organized crime(a field she dallied in) yet thought it was necessary to delete any link to her actual occupation, as “over linking”. This, as you can see, is nakedly, absurd, and abuse of the editing privileges of a registered user. 2601:196:180:DC0:64EF:37F5:991A:5023 (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi- Well, I'm not sure I saw abuse of privileges, but I can see how it could seem like that in interactions between registered users and IP editors. The only reason I suggested creating an account is that it facilitates communication. For example, if I wanted to draw your attention to a discussion on how to present the gossip column aspect, it's easy to ping you so that next time you visit Wikipedia, you see a notification. There's no way to do that if you are not registered.

I got the impression that CityOfSilver was only removing a link to a common term, which is something I often do myself. I didn't perceive an attempt to de-emphasize the gossip columnist aspect itself. (Note that I pinged CityOfSilver two sentences back. If you go into editing mode, you can see the syntax).

You can see in the edit history of the Dorothy article that I accepted your re-introduction of the link, while at the same time lamenting what I view as the poor quality of the writing in the gossip column article. Eric ^talk 00:40, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

User:2601:196:180:DC0:64EF:37F5:991A:5023: I have never, not once, treated a user any differently in any way because they were editing anonymously. That edit could have been made by literally anyone and I'd have reverted it for the reason I gave. The explanation I provided included a link to the relevant section of the style guide and I urge you to read that. If you want to discuss, I'm ready to but it'll only be how we can come to an agreement on the content. CityOfSilver 04:17, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

IP editor: It's best to discuss disagreements on talkpages rather than with long edit summaries. Also important to avoid engaging in WP:Edit warring. I don't think CityOfSilver is de-linking the term to refute the notion of Kilgallen being a gossip columnist, but merely to remove what "they" find to be an unnecessary link. I have a different take myself. The best place to discuss the issue would be on the talkpage of the Kilgallen article: Talk:Dorothy_Kilgallen#Gossip_columnist. Eric ^talk 12:15, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Adding note: While I tend to agree on linking the term, I rejected your undo of City's last edit, pending discussion. Note that your edit had the status of a pending change when I saw it in my watchlist (I assume because it was anonymous and was a repeat of a previous edit from this IP), and was hanging in limbo, waiting to be approved or rejected by a reviewer (see WP:Pending changes). Eric ^talk 12:25, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

---