Talk:SWOT analysis/Archives/2018
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed acceptance of an IP's edits Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was reject. (Reason: Good Fait edits by IP wasn't vandilis, but was redundant, and not particularly helpful.)
Discussion:
 | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Salutations, please respond.
DISCLAIMER: You should know that I am herefore in no way related to the user in question, or have affiliations with (him? her?), and thus this is an unbiased question.
I really think we should go through with this.
So, revision 825468474 and the one after it proves to be heloful, espically since I forgot to do so int the first place. And according to Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles#The rest of the opening paragraph, there's good reason for correcting the style. But I'm not quite the expert, (and would like some direction), though I feel that editor should have his edits approved. WHat do you think? Sincerely, User: Zanygenius(talk page) 22:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, Wikipedia is not a democracy. We don't decide issues based on votes but on discussions and consensus. That said, there's not much sense approving them because they have since been reverted anyway. To me they seem to create some redundancy since "and threats" was mentioned already anyway, so while likely not vandalism they weren't helpful either. Huon (talk) 23:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Question: comment@Huon: Okay, I can understand that Wikipedia is not a voting system. I actually came herwe after reading an article about it. Though I should point out that I was not referring to the reverted edit but the two before it. What do you think of those two?
- I assume you mean these edits. As I said, they were reverted (all three IP edits were reverted at once, with Vertium restoring the page to the revision by 130.149.232.211), and they created some redundancy. The problem was one of indentation and line breaks, not of a missing "and threats". Huon (talk) 23:38, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Huon: Yes, I did mean those. He reverted those too? I must have not realized. I do see your point though. Does this mean I should replace the "contributive/constructive" welcome message with a normal one on the IP's talk page? Sincerely, User: Zanygenius(talk page) 23:54, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- You thought they were fixing a problem; it seems likely that the IP editor also thought they were fixing a problem. So the welcome template seems appropriate to me. This is getting rather off-topic; maybe you should take any further questions about that IP to your user talk page or to the WP:Help desk. Personally I wouldn't worry too much, though. Huon (talk) 00:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Huon: Yes, I did mean those. He reverted those too? I must have not realized. I do see your point though. Does this mean I should replace the "contributive/constructive" welcome message with a normal one on the IP's talk page? Sincerely, User: Zanygenius(talk page) 23:54, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.