User:Jgui~enwiki/LobbyEdits

Edits to Jewish Lobby

I had never read nor contributed to the Jewish Lobby article prior to Jan. 19. Since then I have made a total of four edits to this article in a three day period. I have also made a total of six edits to the Talk page explaining those edits: please note that I always left a detailed note explaining each of my edits when I made them.

After reading the article for the first time and noting its highly POV nature, I read the recent Talk and concluded that the best way to improve the article was to organize it to differentiate the different uses of the term, which at that time were all mixed together.

• I made my first edit, a substantial edit, [here]. At that time I also left a note in Talk [here] explaining my edit, explaining that I had not removed ANY text from the existing article, I had only moved it around to better organize it, and that I had also added a new introductory paragraph that another editor had suggested on Talk plus two relevant cited quotes from RS that I had found.
• My edit was reverted twice by the same editor Yahel Guhan in the ensuring 24 hours. These were straight reverts to the previous version of the document - all of my extensive changes were removed. With his first revert [here] this editor made no statement in Talk. The second time [here] this editor left a statement in Talk [here].
• I left a lengthy response to Yahel Guhan in Talk [here]. I noted that his Talk statement to me was inaccurate; that he had claimed that I had deleted text when I had not - and I asked him to follow WP guidelines regarding his own removal of properly cited text. I then made my second edit to the article, restoring my first edit [here], since no valid argument for its removal had yet been made in Talk. This was my only reversion to my first version of the document.
• The next day Jayjg reverted out all of my edits [here], and he made other changes to the article and left an explanation in Talk [here]. Nagle made a couple of edits to Jayjg's version, adding cited text [here] and [here], and he left an explanation in Talk [here].
• Jayjg and Nagle had made some valid arguments for their changes and reversions, so I made my third edit to the article [here]. I started with Jayjg and Nagle's version, and once again I kept all of the text that was in their most recent version of the article. I did not remove any text from that new version of the article. I reorganized it, this time making the organization more explicit by creating subcategory headings. In addition to keeping the changes of the other editors, I made substantial changes from my previous edit [compare here] - finding entirely new text from different authors which I cited from RS to satisfy Jayjg's WP:NEO rule about what could and could not be placed into the article. Please note that I did this even though I disagreed and still disagree with Jayjg's WP:NEO rule.
• Jayjg was the most recent editor to revert out all of my text, so I left a lengthy note to Jayjg in Talk [here], explaining my new edits and explaining how my new edits now satisfied all of the rules he had stated.
• My version of the article was soon reverted out by a "new" editor, named "I am Dr. Drakken". This editor left a note in Talk [here].
• I then made my fourth and last edit to the article here, restoring my second version of the article and explaining to Drakken [here] in Talk that according to WP guidelines reverts should not be done lightly, and refuting his claim that I had treated one of the usages of the term as the preferred version. This was my only reversion to my second version of the document.
• My edit was reverted out within two hour by Armon here, who left no statement in Talk justifying his deletion (but leaving the ironic statement "We have to abide by policy" in his edit history).
• Jayjg left a response in Talk [here] to my earlier note to him; he claimed that my edit had not satisfied his WP:NEO rule.
• I left a note in Talk to him [here] explaining that it had.
• He left a note to me [here], admitting that indeed one of the two cited quotes that I had added in my third edit and that he had reverted out should not have been deleted. He maintains that some of his other deletions were valid.

So this begs the question, what on earth did I do wrong? I try very hard to uphold the highest standard of editing when I edit WP, even though many of the editors I am trying to work with do not. I spent hours working on my edits, reorganizing material to make it clearer and seeking out and finding multiple quotes in indisputable RS to support my edits. I never came close to violating 3RR or even 1RR; I never removed any cited text; I always left notes in Talk explaining my edits - even after they were being removed without any explanation; I always incorporated the work of other editors and never undid any of their work; I always cited my edits with good citations to indisputable RS.

I think it is important to consider the end product that I was trying to achieve. [This] is the article as it was before I made any edits. [This] is the article as it was with my fourth and final edit. Do you think my version is worse than the starting version? If you do, then do you think it is so much worse that numerous editors, including some who were not sanctioned, should have reverted out all of my changes as if it were vandalism?? And finally, if you were me, and you were trying to improve an article, what would you have done differently to avoid being sanctioned??? Thank you, Jgui (talk) 05:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)