Talk:Administrative Law Review

Revision Discussion

Crusio has marked my edits as "vandalism," but his notation is inaccurate and unwarranted. The Wikipedia:vandalism policy states

Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, detrimental but well-intentioned, and vandalizing. Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful.

My edits attempt to explain the history and significance of Administrative Law Review, the most widely-circulated student-edited law journal in North America. Crusio dislikes the style of my writing, but that is no reason to call my edits "vandalism." Goateed (talk) 17:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• Unexplained multiple reversions become, at some point, vandalism. Repeatedly reverting and edit-warring without explaining your edits is not "good faith editing". The reason,s that I have modified your text have been clearly explained in the edit summaries. They go from minor issues (putting a non ISO abbreviation in the ISO abbreviation field of the infobox) to rather serious (inclusion of unsourced promotional language such as "Recognized in the legal community as having the highest circulation rate of any student-edited journal, ALR maintains a readership of roughly 8,500, which includes many of the federal agencies and law firms in Washington, D.C., and supreme courts around the world" etc). The edits that I have made are according to the ||WP:MOS|Wikipedia style guide]], the writing guide for academic journal articles, and a host of other policies (WP:V, WP:NPOV, etc). You just reverted all these edits again to your initial version. I am going to revert that yet again, as I have explained in the foregoing, those edits are not according to WP style and guidelines. Please familiarize yourself with these WP policies and guidelines. --Crusio (talk) 17:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• Then I invite you to outline your suggested revisions. I have sourced the article, and am open to suggestions for where it can be improved. I am not open to your high-and-mighty all-knowing edits. If you have suggestions, make them. If you are only here to act as thought police, then I invite you to find an article in which nobody takes interest and set up your toll bridge there. I do not spend all my time on this site, and I do not have time to do so. It has always been my understanding that this is a place for both amateur and professional input, not the exclusive domain of über-editors. So please make suggestions rather than undoing all my edits. That would constitute you editing in good faith.

Goateed (talk) 18:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, but you are misunderstanding things here. I did explain all my edits clearly, in the edit summaries. Just have a look at the article history and you can see all. Hence, it is you who will have to justify your edits, especially if you are going to add unsourced promotional language or stuff that goes against the style guide. I am sorry if you feel that my edits "high-and-mighty all-knowing". I did try to explain them to you. I understand that not everybody wants to invest the time and effort that some of us do, but you will have to understand that this does not mean that you don't have to go by the rules here. --Crusio (talk) 19:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)