I don't want to get into a revert war here, but I would like to explain why I changed what I did. My changes, though they involved a good deal of perhaps-trivial wikifying (years, for example), were more detailed and important than that. This was a very poorly-written article; I felt I improved it. I welcome further revision, but a straight revert to what seems to me an obviously worse form seems like you didn't really even read my edits. Here are a few of my changes and the rationale:
- Dr. Zamenhof's name -- "L.L. ..." is the title of the article here, and that article says Ludwig is a form of his name but by no means the primary or even necessarily correct one. Why pipe when a straight link is actually better?
- Clarifying what Esperanto is -- not everyone knows Esperanto is even a language, let alone a constructed one. A reader shouldn't have to click the link to find out why her father's invention matters or even what it is.
- Description of Homaranismo -- my rephrasing may not have been the best; please, edit it! But "her father's own universal outlook" is just confusing.
I hope I didn't sound too defensive here, but I try to write and rewrite articles in a professional style. Reverting (rather than rewriting or discussing) productive edits with little justification (other than "over-wikification", whatever that was supposed to mean) is harmful to Wikipedia. Please read changes before reverting. Thanks. --SuperNova |T|C| 04:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry I didn't notice your addition to the talk page before I changed it back again. I tried to re-insert everything you mentioned. My main complaint was the over-linking/over-wikification of all the dates, and words such as religion. It's possible to link every other word of an article, but it makes the article look terrible. linking random calendar dates is a pet peeve of mine. Cuñado - Talk 07:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)