User talk:Mottenkiste

January 2018

Hello, I'm Tutelary. Your recent edit to BlackBerry 950 appears to have added incorrect information, so I removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Tutelary (talk) 00:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

November 2024

Hello, I'm Donald Albury. I noticed that you recently removed content from Florida without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Donald Albury 13:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

You removed most of a large block of sourced content, and left a small part of that content without a source. It is a particular problem removing citations from articles without it being clear that the source does not support the content, or the source is not acceptable for use in Wikipedia. Per the advice at Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, you have been bold and you have been reverted, so it is now time to discuss the changes you want to make at Talk:Florida. Donald Albury 13:28, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I did not remove anything that wasn't redundant, at least nothing I am aware of.

Parts of the section in question concerning the era from ca. 1815 until 1845 were a mess, with the narrative jumping back and forth, and identical content appearing multiple times in different places.

There were severals passages carrying practially identical information with only very slight differences (e.g. mention of a year), which I tried to carry over into the other passage when necessary.

Just one example: The Adams–Onís Treaty is mentioned twice, first with both years of 1819 (when it was signed, which is not explicitly mentioned) and 1821 (when it went into effect), then the story carries on until 1858, to then in the next paragraph jump back to the beginning of the 19th century when Florida "had become a burden to Spain", which is why they signed the Adams–Onís Treaty "which took effect in 1821". From there, the story continues up to 1822, just to jump back to the "early 1800s" at the beginning of the next paragraph.

With the whole narrative put into chronological order, the back story belongs to the first mention of the treaty, and in the result the treaty does not even need to be mentioned multiple times.

The First Seminole War is introduced twice, in two consecutive paragraphs. In a similar way, the fate of the Seminoles and the story of the remaining ones in the Everglades was told inconsistently in multiple places.

I did not add anything to the section that hadn't been there before (albeit possibly in a different paragraph or sentence), nor am I aware of having deleted any sourced material. The diff page also does not show any deletion of sourced material (that was not moved elsewhere). Could you please identify which sourced material was missing in the final overall result?

Absolutely everything that was removed was duplicate information AFAICT.

I cannot completely rule out possible errors. But even looking into the diff page, I cannot find any substantial mistakes. It was actually quite challenging to reorder these passages without dropping anything. I copied the relevant paragraphs out of the article, diligently reordered the content, and removed duplicate sentences only after carrying over non-duplicate information to the remaining mentions. Only after all these edits were done, did I copy the result back into the article.

I am no expert of Florida history in any way, which is why I actually refrained from adding any factual information, or disputing any of the content.

My edits were not meant to make a factual difference, and IMHO they didn't in the end result.

I'm actually rather disappointed by the indiscriminate reversal, since I put quite some time in the cleanup and I did not change any of the informational value. Mottenkiste (talk) 19:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC)