User talk:JAQ
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] From FT2
See talk page over Ciz and ArbCom. Thanks. FT2 20:16, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
A cautious "so far so good" from me, on your reworking of the Zoophilia article. I found and fixed one item that needed clarification in it, a statement 2-8% now says "more than 1-2% but probably less than around 8-10%" to avoid mis reading. That statement has been mis read in the talk page and needed rewording. FT2 19:11, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
Okay, I understand. Your edits in fact made me look closer (you know how people bounce off each other, "oh yeah, why didnt I think of cutting it down that way?")
I have added the last part thats missing as best I can see it, and whats there now looks pretty good. I wont edit any more. The only thing I have added just now before I saw your message is a small snip on health (ie misconceptions over pregnancy, and cross-infection). I wont add more, and I don't take it amiss. If I spot something I'll just put it on its talk page as usual. FT2 18:45, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
Oh, and I like what you've done on organisation - psych perspectives, religious, etc. the order or sections looks good. I admit I was concerned initially that it would be so overhauled as to remove much relevant material (I guess a separate "research" article is needed??) and end up in a "two articles" situation with POV arguments. But in fact it is looking reassuringly decent so far :) FT2 18:48, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
Apologies JAQ. I thought that would be the best place to contribute without interrupting your edits, thats all. Your previous message sounded like all you wanted was the article left untouched which I'm fine with, I didnt realise you didnt want any comments or typo fixes either. I think we just got crossed wires is all. Misunderstanding now cleared up? FT2 19:57, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Ciz comment for your attention
In the section RFAr/Ciz/Evidence#Response_to_Ciz_comments, Ciz comments that:
- The stuff deleted was pov. Even after they were reverted, JAQ had to reduce it for being 'pro-zoo apologia.' And I have not intentionally deleted someone's comments in a debate. --Ciz 17:50, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I believe this is untrue, but I leave it to you to rebut, as it seems more directed at you than me. It follows my comment that "ruthlessly edited does not mean a licence to hack out entire huge chunks of encyclopaedic articles if you happen to disagree with them." FT2 21:12, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
