Talk:Belgian Shepherd Dog (Malinois)

Returned AKC description that was arbitrarily changed without explanation by another contributor.

There was absolutely nothing wrong with the description or writing that was capriciously changed without written explanation. I have reverted back to the original article I was writing. As an "inuse" tag is not used here I can not tag the article as such. Also, there is plenty of articles waiting to be written, with few authors, so I would like to know why there is such an interest concerning an article I am attempting to write. Mary Ash 19:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Mary, that's nonsense. There's no reason to have to ask permission to copyedit another's work on a wiki. There is not, and hopefully never will be, an "inuse" tag at Citizendium precisely because we expect others to jump in and help each other. If you want to develop an article, use a sandbox, but know that it will get edited when you put it in public space. Enjoy the fact that someone wants to work with you and please be kind. D. Matt Innis 23:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

As the contributor made changes without explanation, I was a bit miffed. Especially so since there was absolutely nothing wrong with the grammar. There was one spelling error I corrected when I ran a spelling/grammar check using Open Office. Also, I issued no complaint when the said contributor did rewrite a poorly written sentence and corrected some formatting issues. As I wrote there's plenty to do here, and I try to leave other active articles alone, as I do believe author's should have the ability to write without interruption. I guess I should be glad the contributor is trying to help but I was purposely recasting sentences and paraphrasing to avoid plagiarism. Thanks!Mary Ash 00:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I've always found that when I get miffed, it is better for me to take a step back. Usually, it was me, not them. You also might want to consider adding your compliments to your concerns. D. Matt Innis 00:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I am also going to ask you to never use the revert/undo tab again. Make your edits one at a time. D. Matt Innis 01:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

My revert was once and it returned to the last good faith edit that included both the edits I made plus the said contributor's. I wrote earlier I issued no complaints as they were good edits but I did not agree with today's edits. I do believe there are plenty of articles left to write. Also, this contributor seems to be selecting to edit not only this article but an earlier one (Marcus Welby, M.D.) I wrote and that leads me to believe there is some selective editing going on. Shades of another contributor no longer here. Mary Ash 01:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

You are talking about the friendliest and most gracious author here. I'm afraid you won't be able to convince me that his intentions were anything other than friendly, courteous, and helpful. Don't conflate the gestures of others with memories of past shadows. You'll only shoot yourself in the foot :) D. Matt Innis 03:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

{unindent}Good faith runs both ways. I did not complain or revert earlier good faith edits of said contributor. To be informed the most recent edits were done to correct grammatical errors was inaccurate. I ran a grammar check and everything written was grammatically correct. I did find one spelling error. I guess you could say the contributor was trying to edit an active article and the one I was working on was one of the few. Once again it's all a matter or respect. I don't normally butt in when I see an article under active edits. I may go do some editing when there is a slow down in writing. I will take your word for him being friendly and kind. Mary Ash 05:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, let me be clear, at Citizendium all editors and authors are not only allowed to edit an "active" article, but they are expected to jump in anywhere at any time. Efforts to keep other authors and editors off an active article could be construed as claiming "ownership" and using harsh language to push them away is uncivil. If you want to work alone, you must work in a sandbox. It is quite alright for an author to change something that someone has written. If it changes the meaning then it would be nice to make a note on the talk page, but it is not required - unless it is a large amount of content. However, it would be courteous to make some comment on the talk page. Outright reverting is considered rude, so instead just change the part that is unacceptible and tell the author why the change was unacceptable, not why their participation was unacceptable - that would be uncivil as well. D. Matt Innis 12:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's the page history for you to check: [1]. There were numerous edits made and a reversion of work done by me without explanation. Yes, the edits fell within the guidelines of professionalism see: [2] but no explanation was given on the discussion page. At least I had the courtesy of leaving discussion page comments after I made my good faith edits. I do believe what I did acted within in "good faith" and followed the LAW as well as the intent of the LAW. Good faith runs both ways. I changed back to the article I was writing as it was better written grammatically while paraphrasing the material used for research. Thank you. Mary Ash 13:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

This edit of yours erased all 4 of Chunbum's copyedits. No explanation is needed for good faith copyedits. None of his edits were even close to being plagiarism. Reverting is a slap in the face. Your comments were not courteous, but rather brash. I am sure that Chunbum would have understood your concern had you treated him as a fellow contributer rather than an enemy. I see he graciously acknowledged your wishes on your talk page, but you have yet to acknowledge him. I've said all I am going to say on this here. I'll move to email from here. D. Matt Innis 16:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Malinois at work

Those two Malinois pictured in the police work section of the article look like my old dog Nikki. She was not a purebred Malinois but she sure looked like one. Acted like one too as she was loyal, devoted, with a high prey dog. She was my favorite dog. Mary Ash 01:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite needed

It's not clear to me whether this is intended to be a general treatment of Beligian Shepherds, or a specific article about the Malinois. I don't mind which, we need both; but the title should accurately reflect the title.

I feel most strongly that breed standards have no place in the main article. A simple repetition of a breed standard is unnecessary, it is at best monotonous and at worst a copyright violation.There should be a general description of the breed's characteristics, appearance and temperament, but the standard should appear on a subpage, if it is not copyright, or as a link on a subpage, if it is.

Finally, the article should not be written from the point of view of any one kennel club. It's a trap that's easily fallen into and we have to avoid it.

Aleta Curry 02:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)