Holbach Girl (talk | contribs) |
→Problematic edits: on edit warring |
||
Line 105: | Line 105: | ||
::::First, you were told more than once not to revert until there was consensus for your changes, but you're not listening to that. You should discuss before adding. Second, I'm not sure at all what your edits are doing because you're making major changes to pretty much everything, and this means you definitely need a talk page consensus. Your edits are confusing. This is unacceptable and you must stop. [[User:Desmay|desmay]] ([[User talk:Desmay|talk]]) 14:58, 5 April 2018 (UTC) |
::::First, you were told more than once not to revert until there was consensus for your changes, but you're not listening to that. You should discuss before adding. Second, I'm not sure at all what your edits are doing because you're making major changes to pretty much everything, and this means you definitely need a talk page consensus. Your edits are confusing. This is unacceptable and you must stop. [[User:Desmay|desmay]] ([[User talk:Desmay|talk]]) 14:58, 5 April 2018 (UTC) |
||
:::::Hi, everyone has been told not to revert without consensus, and here is the first revert without consensus.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rob_Sherman&diff=828029382&oldid=828026954] You'll see that is not my edit. So I listen just fine, thank you oh so very much. You are welcome to discuss before editing, but the owner of this article directed me to a rule page which says "Bold editing is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. All editors are welcome to make positive contributions. When in doubt, edit!" so I'll stay with that. Second, the "major changes" confusing you are not mine. All of my changes are small and minor and self-explanatory. You'll see that I have already listed the 15 improvements above, along with extra reasoning at no additional charge. You just made a "major change" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rob_Sherman&diff=834481335&oldid=834402239] without consensus, so I am going to revert to the wording that had the improvements. If you see any specific problems with any improvements I have made, please leave me a note about it here and we can discuss how to fix them. [[User:Holbach Girl|Holbach Girl]] ([[User talk:Holbach Girl|talk]]) 03:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC) |
:::::Hi, everyone has been told not to revert without consensus, and here is the first revert without consensus.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rob_Sherman&diff=828029382&oldid=828026954] You'll see that is not my edit. So I listen just fine, thank you oh so very much. You are welcome to discuss before editing, but the owner of this article directed me to a rule page which says "Bold editing is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. All editors are welcome to make positive contributions. When in doubt, edit!" so I'll stay with that. Second, the "major changes" confusing you are not mine. All of my changes are small and minor and self-explanatory. You'll see that I have already listed the 15 improvements above, along with extra reasoning at no additional charge. You just made a "major change" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rob_Sherman&diff=834481335&oldid=834402239] without consensus, so I am going to revert to the wording that had the improvements. If you see any specific problems with any improvements I have made, please leave me a note about it here and we can discuss how to fix them. [[User:Holbach Girl|Holbach Girl]] ([[User talk:Holbach Girl|talk]]) 03:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC) |
||
::::::User:Holbach Girl, I have to disagree with your understanding of how wikipedia functions and also the situation on this article. |
|||
::::::For one thing, you introduced many major and bold edits to the article on February 28 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rob_Sherman&type=revision&diff=828026954&oldid=823848224]. Keep in mind that the previous edit before your major edits was February 3 by User:Clayton Forrester. Secondly, remember that you made a bold move on February 28 and if no other editor had disputed your Feb 28 edits, then there would be no issue. However, the problem is that when you made bold major edits on February 28, another editor (User:1990sguy) disputed your edits and this began the edit war [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rob_Sherman&diff=828029382&oldid=828026954]. By looking at the edit history, User:1990sguy reverted correctly to User:Clayton Forrester February 3 edit - which was the last edit before your edits. |
|||
::::::On Wikipedia, you cannot boldly make edits and say that you version is the correct one - especially when your add is exactly what being disputed by another editor!! Once you and User:1990'sguy were in a dispute over your major edits that you introduced on February 28, both of you must reach a consensus in the talk page before making further edits. In looking over this thread in this talk page section, it seems other editors have disagreed with your major edits you have introduced since February 28 and not many have shown support for your major changes. So in you constantly boldly re-adding your edits when you do not have a consensus for your edits, you are actually violating wikipedia policy and provoking an edit war! This can get you in trouble. First convince people here in the talk page, then you may add what is agreed upon in the actual article. Again, your edits are being disputed here not anyone else's (and you have been reverted by 3 editors so far) and it looks like everyone else is just trying to restore the article to the the wording from February 3 before your major bold edits on February 28. |
|||
::::::Also since you are already discussing your concerns on this talk page, wait for editors to reply to your points (this may take a few days). Patience is important. |
|||
::::::Please note that in wikipedia you are allowed to make bold edits, but once an editor reverts or disputes your bold edit, you must not boldly re-add your edits since this may cause an edit war and disruptive editing. The policy for [[WP:EDITWAR]] states ''"An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions. Editors engaged in a dispute should reach consensus or pursue dispute resolution rather than edit warring. Edit warring is unconstructive and creates animosity between editors, making consensus harder to reach. Users who engage in edit wars risk being blocked or even banned."'' |
Revision as of 07:11, 7 April 2018
Biography Unassessed | |||||||
|
Illinois Unassessed | ||||||||||
|
GA Review
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Rob Sherman/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: User:Great scott (talk · contribs) 11:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | ||
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | ||
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | ||
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | ||
2c. it contains no original research. | ||
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | ||
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | ||
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | ||
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | ||
7. Overall assessment. | Well written and adequately sourced. |
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Rob Sherman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080511145147/http://www.robsherman.com/ to http://www.robsherman.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Problematic edits
@Holbach Girl: Please explain your edits to this page? Much of your wording changes seem very POV -- for example, you changed the mention of Sherman's support for "same-sex marriage" to "opposition to gender and LGBT discrimination"; you changed the "Atheist advocacy" header to "Civil rights advocacy" (even though the sources say otherwise and although everything in the section involves lawsuits against local governments for religious symbols and other similar cases); and in the introduction you changed "atheist advocacy" to "advocacy of separation of church and state" (even though the sources clearly identify him as an atheist activist -- even he identified himself as "the best known atheist-activist in the Midwest"). Your wording choices are POV and do not conform to what the sources said. And it's not appropriate to cite an opinion article here.
Also, I strongly disagree with your reorganization of the article (which you did without discussing on the talk page even after I objected). This article was organized chronologically, but you moved info that should be in "Early life" section to the "Personal life" section, making the article disjoined in its organization. Much of your edits also make the article much wordier than it was and more than it ought to be. Articles should be as concise as possible.
Also, what was the purpose of this edit summary? You just copied my edit summary. Not only is this snarky (not a good way to cooperate with other editors), but your edit summary is simply false, as your version does not make the article less disjointed and better organized, and nor does it make the article more concise. And then in your next article, you didn't even bother writing an edit summary in response to argue why your version is better. And you haven't bothered to go to the talk page. Please explain. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:22, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- The purpose of my changes should be obvious. I read the sources, and add information to this article. I put in discrimination instead of "same-sex marriage" because that's what was in the newspaper article. Same with describing his advocacy and activism as dealing with the matters of separation of church and state as a civil rights issue. Almost all the sources used on the page say so and explain his activism as "most prominently, but not limited to, the civil rights of atheists, state/church separation". I was just reading his blog just now and even Sherman says "When I first got involved in atheist civil rights advocacy, in 1981, there wasn't much organized opposition to state/church separation other than from American Atheists." He's an atheist of course, but the article did little to explain what his activism was. I added it. I don't understand what you mean by "not appropriate to cite an opinion article". Please explain? The cite is to a piece by a Trib reporter who also does their op-ed. How is that more of an opinion article than any other news piece he writes? I think my version is more logically organized, and I tried to copy the format of other articles. Holbach Girl (talk) 04:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- First off, Eric Zorn's Wikipedia article makes clear that he's "a liberal/progressive op-ed columnist and daily blogger" and gives "a left-of-center perspective" on the news. He shouldn't be cited. Also, as someone who regularly read the Chicago Tribune until a few months ago, I can attest to the fact that he's an opinion columnest and someone who has never (at least during the time I read the Trib) written an objective news article. Besides, the article says it's an opinion article.
- Now that I see the Sun-Times article, I notice that you heavily copied the info from the article (see WP:COPYVIO). When I wrote the article, I paraphrased what the article said, and I condensed it. Also, that very same Sun-Times article says that "Mr. Sherman was constantly in the headlines for atheism activism" -- it's clear that he can and should be described as an atheist activist.
- And all this is on top of the facts that your reorganization of the article made it unnecessarily disjointed and poorly organized and that your changes made the article unnecessarily wordy. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- The page you pointed to has barely two sentences about Zorn, and says nothing about how he must not be cited. Can you point me to a rule on Wiki please? Condensing and leaving out are not the same. I'm certain I saw no mention of the discrimination he was fighting in your version. Also is there a page size limit for Sherman's page?Holbach Girl (talk) 04:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- The lawsuit court papers describe Sherman as [1] "Robert I. Sherman is a leading expert on atheist civil rights and one of the most successful and effective atheist civil rights activists in America today. He has won dozens of state/church separation battles in the past twenty years." "Atheist activist" doesn't explain anything, without mentioning what he was an activist for. Holbach Girl (talk) 04:40, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- The info that you added citing the source is worded is a very biased way. "Sherman was consistent in his constitutional church-state activism. He didn't debate God; instead, his challenges were based on the Constitution, which he felt supported the right of nonbelievers not to sponsor religion."? This looks like it was copied right out of Zorn's article -- the op-ed article is a defense of Sherman, so presenting the article as an objective news source blatantly misrepresents the source and violates WP:NPOV. If anything, it should say "According to opinion columnist Eric Zorn, ..." or something like that -- we need to make very clear that the article is an op-ed article whose sole purpose is to support and defend Sherman. The way it is now, it is inappropriate and should be removed, and I don't see how the op-ed article offers anything of value to this article.
- About the Writ of Certiorari document (they are not "lawsuit court papers"), those are Sherman's very own court papers -- they were filed by "Rob Sherman Advocacy", and as a Writ of Certiorari, he's arguing for a certain legal position in them -- they're the legal version of op-eds. Of course Rob Sherman is going to describe himself like this. These court papers are not RS, at least in this context.
- Per the RSs, Rob Sherman is an atheist activist, something which he made very clear. The article body makes very clear what that means, for the occasional readers who don;t instantly understand what it means. --1990'sguy (talk) 05:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- The version prior to HolbachGirl's edits was more true to the sources. I have hence reverted until consensus is reached here. Sdmarathe (talk) 07:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Okay Sdmarathe, I disagree. For example, the sources say he fought discrimination, and didn't mention same sex marriage. Hence I will revert so that the page is true to the sources. Can you give examples please where the text is not true to the sources? Holbach Girl (talk) 01:35, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
I did as 1990'sguy suggested and added Eric Zorn, but I have a question about what he was "defending" Sherman from. Can you explain that please? Holbach Girl (talk) 01:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
About Eric Zorn, thanks for adding that line, but the paragraph is still worded badly. Can you get it down to one sentence and word it in a WP:NPOV way that clearly shows it is Zorn's opinion?- I changed the mention of support for "same-sex marriage" to support for "LGBT rights", and I added "feminism" to that list. Your version of the paragraph was copied right out of the article, and that violates WP:COPYVIO.
- And once again, I strongly disagree with your reorganization of the article. As I've stated multiple times, your proposed organization does not improve the article -- it does the opposite, as it makes the article much wordier and is not organized in a reader-friendly way. I reverted once again per WP:BRD. You need consensus to change the article your way, and there is none. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:49, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
- I re-added Zorn's op-ed with better and more concise wording. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:56, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
- About your question about Zorn above, the article is clearly intended to praise Sherman -- it defends him from his critics. It is not a neutral source, and its author is an opinion columnist. We need to be very careful about using any sources like that, and we should make clear it's someone's opinion rather than fact. --1990'sguy (talk) 05:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
- I re-added Zorn's op-ed with better and more concise wording. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:56, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
In addition to the fact that the current version is better-organized, has no copyright violations, and is more concise, the term "atheist activist" is appropriate to use for him (though I did add "separation of church and state" as well due to your insistence):
- "The office supply dealer turned atheist advocate..."
- "Sherman was an outspoken atheist..."
- "Sherman is an atheist activist known..."
- "Atheist activist Rob Sherman was flying at night...."
This article and the Herald&Review article I listed right above have "separation of church and state" wording. Thus, it is best that we include both, per the sources. That is what I just did. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Holbach Girl: Now that I changed the wording per your criticisms, what objections do you still have? Can you give quotes to justify your positions? Also, please don't WP:EDITWAR -- you need a consensus to change the article from its longstanding version, per WP:CONS. --1990'sguy (talk) 05:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
- I agree that User:Holbach Girl's reversions are unhelpful and that her proposals don't make the article better. The sources show that "atheist activist" is best to use, even though I find 90s guy's compromise helpful. Edit warring is not the solution, and Holbach Girl should better gain consensus on the talk page first. Sdmarathe (talk) 12:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
1990'sguy, you linked to a page about editwarring, asking me "please don't". Would it be possible for you to lead by example? I recall that you were the first to "override" my additions to the page, and many times after. When I looked at the history to verify this, I discovered that you created the original version of this page. Does that grant you special privileges over what can be added or deleted? If that is the situation, please link the page that will explain that to me. Per your remarks about the Zorn article, I've carefully reread it and do not see a single instance of "defending" against critics. I also did not see "feminism" mentioned.Holbach Girl (talk) 01:50, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
I added some refs back that were deleted with your last edits.Holbach Girl (talk) 01:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
- No, you don't understand -- your proposed version has no consensus, while the old version existed for years. The fact that I created it is irrelevant. You must get a consensus for your new proposal before re-adding it. Also, one other editor prefers the old version. You cannot make changes unilaterally with no support -- they will get reverted, and I am close to reporting you for it.
- With "feminism", I was paraphrasing the source. Unlike your proposed version (which has no support or consensus), I am not going to commit copyright violations (see WP:COPYVIO), so I will paraphrase. Fighting "gender and LGBT discrimination" is synonymous with supporting LGBT rights and feminism (I added the feminism link after seeing the opening paragraph, which said it supports equality for men and women).
- With Zorn's article, that's ridiculous -- it's an op-ed that defends Sherman. That's clear. We're not going to treat it like an objective journalistic article, because it's clearly not. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
I see enough misunderstanding to go around. I have now read all of the pages you linked, also some manual of style pages, and reviewed some sample articles rated as "Good" and "Featured". Now I will do my best to explain what I think you do not understand. Here are examples of your worst misunderstandings: "Get consensus BEFORE making massive changes". I have never made massive changes. My changes have been just a word or two here and a sentence or two there, made over the span of several hours and days. It is you who then makes the "massive change" of erasing all of my many separate improvements with a single edit (not a good way to cooperate with other editors).
Example: "your proposed version has no consensus, while the old version existed for years" and "You must get a consensus for your new proposal". I have never proposed a new version. There is no new proposal. I have only made small improvements and corrections, which I already checked and confirmed that I don't need your permission to add, no matter how long the page has existed in disrepair.
Example: "your wording changes seem very POV". This one I have not heard recently since I showed you the wording changes were right from the source. So you found another reason to object: "you heavily copied the info from the article (see WP:COPYVIO)". I did not. I reused just 4 words from that whole source, and I already checked and confirmed that is not a violation. Here is what the page used to say:
- Sherman's political positions included support for capitalism, same-sex marriage, and climate change advocacy, and he opposed red light cameras.
- I improved it to: Sherman's political positions included support for capitalism, anti-abortion, and fighting climate change, opposition to gender and LGBT discrimination, opposition to red light cameras, which he referred to as a "revenue scam".
- Your source says: On [his website], he promoted capitalism while calling for a fight against climate change. He promised to battle gender and LGBT discrimination, as well as red light cameras, or as he put it, “Revenue Scam Cameras.”
Your source never mentions "Feminism" or climate change "Advocacy", and his campaign website doesn't either, I looked. In what special world does "battling climate change" mean "support for climate change advocacy", and since when is "battling gender discrimination" reduced to support for merely "feminism"? What you call paraphrasing is really changing the meaning of what he said, and that is not allowed. You are injecting your POV.
Example: I see the same POV injection when you describe Zorn's writing as in "support and defense" of Sherman, when he both criticizes and praises Sherman even-handedly (a description of the article made by other writers, not me). I've since discovered Zorn's writing on Sherman has been cited in books (even a Cengage textbook) and he has written nearly two dozen pieces on him, some quite critical, so he should know the subject. I still have a question about what he was "defending" Sherman from. From what critics and from what criticism? Can you explain that please?
Example: You claimed I "reorganized" out of chronological order because I moved his ethnicity and personal beliefs from the "early life" section to the "personal life" section where they belong. The sources are clear that he was Jewish and atheist until the day he died, not just during his "early life". My chronological order is more correct and easier to follow. The Good articles and Featured articles, and the Manuals of Style I looked at agree with my placement of information on death, marriages, religions, ethnicities, personal beliefs or nonbeliefs. I did remove the "Biography" header because it does not make sense when this whole page is a biography. [2]
Example: I sense another misunderstanding, but I can't be sure. I will clear it up in advance just in case. I can't be bullied.
I thought we were making progress. You gave me permission to add Zorn and Roeper quotes to your page. You allowed me to mention church-state separation on your page, just like your sources do. You granted your approval to my mention of Sherman's appearances on the national talk shows. Then you remove obvious facts and my source references, like the fact that Sherman is pro-life. You call my improvements "unnecessarily wordy" and not succinct, but I am not the one who wrote that he moved from Buffalo Grove to Poplar Grove twice on the same page. Now this is getting "wordy" so I'll stop here for now.Holbach Girl (talk) 04:42, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, I just noticed the edit war involving the 3 editors here going on since February 28 til today (March 7). Seeing that no consensus has been reached so far for the new edits or the new wording or rearranging of the article sections (looks like major changes to me), all parties should abstain from making further edits until some sort of consensus is reached on the wording here in the talk page. I am going to revert to the wording that did not have the major changes for now. Settle the disagreements here first before editing again - all of you. Otherwise, it could get worse since it looks like there is danger of violation of 3RR based on the length of this edit war. I recommend everyone provide quotes for what they are trying to edit here and compromise the wording from there. Disruptive editing is frowned upon here in wikipedia. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 06:30, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, the edit war involves 4 editors here, unless Hultzilopochtli1990, 1990'sguy and Ramos1990 are the same editor. I'm getting different names for the same editor depending on where I click. Are you the same person, and playing a trick on me? Anyway, you and Sdmarathe have each edit warred once, with neither offering any specific improvement advice, just one massive edit back to your preferred versions. That leaves me and the owner of this page, 1990'sguy. When I make several separate improvements, he wipes them all away with a single edit, something he started and continues to do. You didn't have consensus to make your massive [3] change, so I am going to revert to the wording that had the improvements. If you see any specific problems with any improvements I have made, please leave me a note about it here and we can discuss how to fix them.Holbach Girl (talk) 03:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- Holbach Girl, this is a major reorganization of the article on top of making many content and wording changes. Read this vs this. This is much more than just changing the wording of some sentences here and there -- these are no small changes.
- You said you read all the guidelines -- did you read WP:BRD? You tried to make major changes to the article's organization, content, and wording; I (as well as others) reverted because I don't think your changes are an improvement; so now, we should discuss here. In the eyes of Wikipedia, your version is not necessarily better or worse than the original (which I support), but you need a consensus to change it. You don't have that consensus.
- Zorn's article is clearly supportive of Sherman, and your summary of his article is wordy and POV. That's all that matters.
- Rob Sherman's atheism was central to his life, which is why the original chronological order is better. Read the articles of people like Martin Luther, etc. You won't see Martin Luther's religious views in the "personal life" section of the article. You say your version is easier to read, but I disagree.
- It looked like we were making progress, and I gave into many of your demands (without reorganizing the article, which I strongly oppose), but then you unilaterally (again) changed the article 100% to your favored position. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:34, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
- 1990sguy, you linked to an edit you say is a major reorganization of the article on top of making many content and wording changes. No, that edit is only a reversal of your edit. It shows all changes by everyone, not my changes and improvements, which were smaller and made earlier, and separately. It was your edit [4] that deleted many separate, small article content and organization improvements, without consensus. You have also done this before. Look at the page history and you will see that it was you who started making massive changes. [5] Yes I read the BRD page. It says I should be bold and make positive edits, and I did. Then it says revert an edit if it isn't an improvement, and only if necessary, which you did not do. Instead you reverted ALL my improvements with a blanket excuse, which was absolutely unnecessary. The page also says when reverting, be specific about your reasons, and you didn't do that either. You didn't even give reasons at all for deleting most of my improvements. So why haven't you read the BRD page?
- I want to discuss my actual edits with you, so here they are.
- 1 Changed "stated that he was an atheist since age 9", because he didn't state that. Sources say "he's known he was an atheist since he was 9" and "his stance as an atheist took full form at age 9". I added quote from Sherman to explain.
- 2 Moved religion-related beliefs sentence and quotation to Personal life from Early life, and explained why before on this page. His atheism was not just Early life, but before and after.
- 3 clarified ambiguous "atheist advocacy" to more explanatory "advocacy of separation of church and state". Also added what the speech was about, from the source, since it motivated Sherman to activism. Also changed "for what he considered unconstitutional endorsements of religion" to the actual reasons per the cited source, requiring a "duty to God" and a law mandating a moment of "silent prayer or silent reflection".
- 4 Took out the Biography header because the whole page is a biography. Added a Career header because that is what other good and featured pages have, and jobs like Office supply sales don't look right under Early life.
- 5 Moved notice of death to the end of Personal life section, where it is found in good and featured articles. Changed "he spent 120 days in prison" to "He was sentenced to 120 days in jail" because that is what the source said, and another source on that page further said he was bailed out early anyway.
- 6 Replaced "same-sex marriage" and "advocacy", not mentioned in the source, with "opposition to gender and LGBT discrimination" and "fighting climate change" from the source. Changed "removing mentions of "God"" to the actual recognized phrases being removed, as they are identified in the sources and in legal cases. Also, "from United States dollar" is poor grammar.
- 7 Changed "invites" to "invitations".
- 8 Made header a subheader of Personal life section, like other articles.
- 9 Added that he worked as "a teacher, at a bank, on a Good Humor truck, and as an office manager for the French consulate" to Career section, with a Daily Herald source reference. Added short paragraph to Advocacy section, "Sherman was consistent in his constitutional church-state activism. He didn't debate God, instead, his challenges were based on the Constitution, which he felt supported the right of nonbelievers not to sponsor religion. In 1989, when a threat of a legal challenge resulted in the removal of lighted Christian crosses from government property, hundreds of home and business owners responded by erecting lighted crosses on their private property. Sherman called the resulting display "a festival of religious liberty. It proves that people don't need the government to do religion for them." Sourced to Chicago Tribune.
- 10 Moved American Red Cross volunteer from Personal life to Career. Might be better in an Affiliations section.
- 11 Changed Early life header to Early life and education, as I see in many other articles.
- 12 Attributed description of activism to Eric Zorn per 1990sguy request.
- 13 Add his pro-life position and noted his atheism and civil rights activism at top of page.
- 14 Added category for Civil rights activist.
- 15 Added sentencing information from the source.
- About your comments here, Zorn's article is equal parts critical and complimentary. It mentions his failed runs for political office, calls him vain, flawed, brash, annoying, self-promoting, it condemns his physical altercation with his son. I never summarized this article. I sourced only one small part of it, and took a quote from it, and you have not explained how that is pov. Rob Sherman's atheism was no more or less "central to his life" than his gender, skin color or Jewish ethnicity. Yes he was outspoken about his nonbelief tho, even had an "ATHEIST" tag on his car, and often introduced himself as "the Constitution-thumping atheist Rob Sherman", so it is still mentioned at the top of the article. You implied it wasn't. It was his activism that was central to his life, and much of it focused on the civil rights and Constitutional protections of atheists, as a discriminated minority. Martin Luther doesn't have a Personal life section, and Sherman doesn't have a religious view to put at the top of the page. Holbach Girl (talk) 03:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- First, you were told more than once not to revert until there was consensus for your changes, but you're not listening to that. You should discuss before adding. Second, I'm not sure at all what your edits are doing because you're making major changes to pretty much everything, and this means you definitely need a talk page consensus. Your edits are confusing. This is unacceptable and you must stop. desmay (talk) 14:58, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, everyone has been told not to revert without consensus, and here is the first revert without consensus.[6] You'll see that is not my edit. So I listen just fine, thank you oh so very much. You are welcome to discuss before editing, but the owner of this article directed me to a rule page which says "Bold editing is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. All editors are welcome to make positive contributions. When in doubt, edit!" so I'll stay with that. Second, the "major changes" confusing you are not mine. All of my changes are small and minor and self-explanatory. You'll see that I have already listed the 15 improvements above, along with extra reasoning at no additional charge. You just made a "major change" [7] without consensus, so I am going to revert to the wording that had the improvements. If you see any specific problems with any improvements I have made, please leave me a note about it here and we can discuss how to fix them. Holbach Girl (talk) 03:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- User:Holbach Girl, I have to disagree with your understanding of how wikipedia functions and also the situation on this article.
- Hi, everyone has been told not to revert without consensus, and here is the first revert without consensus.[6] You'll see that is not my edit. So I listen just fine, thank you oh so very much. You are welcome to discuss before editing, but the owner of this article directed me to a rule page which says "Bold editing is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. All editors are welcome to make positive contributions. When in doubt, edit!" so I'll stay with that. Second, the "major changes" confusing you are not mine. All of my changes are small and minor and self-explanatory. You'll see that I have already listed the 15 improvements above, along with extra reasoning at no additional charge. You just made a "major change" [7] without consensus, so I am going to revert to the wording that had the improvements. If you see any specific problems with any improvements I have made, please leave me a note about it here and we can discuss how to fix them. Holbach Girl (talk) 03:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- First, you were told more than once not to revert until there was consensus for your changes, but you're not listening to that. You should discuss before adding. Second, I'm not sure at all what your edits are doing because you're making major changes to pretty much everything, and this means you definitely need a talk page consensus. Your edits are confusing. This is unacceptable and you must stop. desmay (talk) 14:58, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- About your comments here, Zorn's article is equal parts critical and complimentary. It mentions his failed runs for political office, calls him vain, flawed, brash, annoying, self-promoting, it condemns his physical altercation with his son. I never summarized this article. I sourced only one small part of it, and took a quote from it, and you have not explained how that is pov. Rob Sherman's atheism was no more or less "central to his life" than his gender, skin color or Jewish ethnicity. Yes he was outspoken about his nonbelief tho, even had an "ATHEIST" tag on his car, and often introduced himself as "the Constitution-thumping atheist Rob Sherman", so it is still mentioned at the top of the article. You implied it wasn't. It was his activism that was central to his life, and much of it focused on the civil rights and Constitutional protections of atheists, as a discriminated minority. Martin Luther doesn't have a Personal life section, and Sherman doesn't have a religious view to put at the top of the page. Holbach Girl (talk) 03:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- For one thing, you introduced many major and bold edits to the article on February 28 [8]. Keep in mind that the previous edit before your major edits was February 3 by User:Clayton Forrester. Secondly, remember that you made a bold move on February 28 and if no other editor had disputed your Feb 28 edits, then there would be no issue. However, the problem is that when you made bold major edits on February 28, another editor (User:1990sguy) disputed your edits and this began the edit war [9]. By looking at the edit history, User:1990sguy reverted correctly to User:Clayton Forrester February 3 edit - which was the last edit before your edits.
- On Wikipedia, you cannot boldly make edits and say that you version is the correct one - especially when your add is exactly what being disputed by another editor!! Once you and User:1990'sguy were in a dispute over your major edits that you introduced on February 28, both of you must reach a consensus in the talk page before making further edits. In looking over this thread in this talk page section, it seems other editors have disagreed with your major edits you have introduced since February 28 and not many have shown support for your major changes. So in you constantly boldly re-adding your edits when you do not have a consensus for your edits, you are actually violating wikipedia policy and provoking an edit war! This can get you in trouble. First convince people here in the talk page, then you may add what is agreed upon in the actual article. Again, your edits are being disputed here not anyone else's (and you have been reverted by 3 editors so far) and it looks like everyone else is just trying to restore the article to the the wording from February 3 before your major bold edits on February 28.
- Also since you are already discussing your concerns on this talk page, wait for editors to reply to your points (this may take a few days). Patience is important.
- Please note that in wikipedia you are allowed to make bold edits, but once an editor reverts or disputes your bold edit, you must not boldly re-add your edits since this may cause an edit war and disruptive editing. The policy for WP:EDITWAR states "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions. Editors engaged in a dispute should reach consensus or pursue dispute resolution rather than edit warring. Edit warring is unconstructive and creates animosity between editors, making consensus harder to reach. Users who engage in edit wars risk being blocked or even banned."