User talk:Strenxfong

Hi Wolfdog

@Wolfdog: Why did you revert my edits? For most of that page's history, my reverts had been in the lead section. This was sourced content. I noticed in your Wikipedia history that you do a lot of reverting of stuff, so I can understand you wanting to be cautious. But isn't this coming down to you page guarding the various pages and wanting what you want to be on it? One of your previous edited pages such as Eastern New England English discusses the r-dropping features of ENE in the lead section. Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be a place where anyone can edit? The previous and first revert that you made has no mention of the current Midland area being in a state of transition. I'm willing to compromise edits for this. I won't touch that page again until we come to agreements. Thank you. Strenxfong (talk) 21:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

"Most of the page's history" doesn't justify edits and, ironically enough, I probably made those edits myself however many months ago. The citation I have on that page, that you have tried to revert, says 'Labov, Ash & Boberg (2006:263)T: "The Midland does not show the homogeneous character that marks the North in Chapter 14, or defines the South in Chapter 18. Many Midland cities have developed a distinct dialect character of their own[....] Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, and St Louis are quite distinct from the rest of the Midland[....]" ' I don't understand the desire to go backwards rather than forwards; we both have cited information, so your claim to using citations as if I don't is misleading. (Perhaps you're not meaning to imply this, which I hope is the case.) The use of "variably "glideless" /aɪ/ vowel (reminiscent of the Southern U.S. accent, but only appearing before sonorant consonants) and an extremely fronted /oʊ/ vowel" seems to be a lot more obscure than a simple inclusion of the most nationally recognizable feature of ENEE being "r-dropping", which I think most English readers can comprehend. That said, why remove my broad overview in the lead in favor of older specifics that we have put in their proper place in the body of the article? Specifics are great but are for the body. Also, in the last several months, this page and my edits here have been repeatedly challenged by editors that ended up being sockpuppets, so my immediate reaction now is to be very suspicious of these kinds of reverts. You are an editor who has appeared out of nowhere and only edited this one single page. Wolfdog (talk) 22:09, 10 April 2018 (UTC)