User talk:132.183.111.207

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] March 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to Robert Siciliano has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Lolipod (talk) 21:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It isn't apparent to me why the edit made was unconstructive. Much shorter and to the point than the version you have now reverted it back to, the new version no longer displaying actually seemed like a vast improvement. This reversion in fact seems like borderline abuse. But I may be overreacting.
Here is the concern:
One primary complaint against this entry for Robert Siciliano, ever since its initial posting in February, has been its resemblance to a resume; the version you reverted it back to, in fact, is the very version that has been drawing this complaint. The previous version now displaying is also bereft of proper formatting (i.e., "wikification"), another major complaint regarding the entry.
The update you negated seemed like an earnest attempt to address the issues of an entry sorely in need of a fundamental overhaul, yet nevertheless worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia -- and therein resides the crux of this:
It's unclear to me how someone might fundamentally improve this entry without essentially significantly recasting and tightening the content. And yet, if this is the only way it can be improved, then what are we to make of someone taking down that very kind of earnest attempt? This is what has happened. It now seems impossible to at once address this properly and satisfy the various wiki members' apparently differing opinions and understandings of what the entry should look like.
Please advise.Bws1971 (talk) 17:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)