Talk:Ivan March

Recent edits

My recent edits have changed the wording to "he came to an agreement with" to "agreed". Simplifying the wording of the sentences improves readability. I've also added commas, following the MOS:COMMA guideline for Wikipedia. I'm not sure why you're reverting my changes. It would be helpful if you explained more here. Editz2341231 (talk) 13:11, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

@Tim riley I'm uncertain why you would revert those changes, can you explain your reverts to me please? Editz2341231 (talk) 13:13, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

(i) we do not falsify quotations as you have done

(ii) if you are so tin-eared to language that you imagine "came to an agreement" is not clearer than "agreed" (which can mean "concurred" and other things) I am unable to help you. The sentence doesn't make sense as you have drawn it.

(iii) why you think your added Oxford commas are useful is quite beyond me.

(iv) perhaps you can explain why you suppose "until her death" is better than "until she died".

I'm guessing you are a schoolboy or schoolgirl, and if so I mustn't be too hard on you, so please take the above comments as kindly meant. Tim riley talk 13:25, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

When you observe "but he continued to care for her until her death in 2016." It's more acceptable to use verbs rather than nouns on that sentence. It's part of the Manual of Style on Wikipedia. I also attempted to change the part on the article where it says "Later he came to an agreement with..." when it should be "Later he agreed to...". It's also too wordy and it's a nominalization because you have a noun counterpart in there. And for the commas, missing commas may cause ambiguity. It would confuse the readers who are viewing this article. Much of the debate on that certain comma. I believe MOS:COMMAS or MOS:OXFORD can explain that. I also stated this in the edit summary for which you ignored or haven't seen. I'm just saying that there is some redundancy in the writing here. I also didn't falsify quotations. Editz2341231 (talk) 13:40, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps other editors might like to comment? Tim riley talk 13:43, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

How can we make that happen? Editz2341231 (talk) 13:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Editors have what are called "Watchlists" on which they list articles in which they are interested and can see changes made to them. Tim riley talk 13:48, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Since this conversation is at a standstill, maybe a third opinion would be optional. But I want to know your stance on the matter here. Clearly, you haven't made a rebuttal on my stance. Editz2341231 (talk) 13:51, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

See my points (i) to (iv), above. Tim riley talk 13:57, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Tim riley on each of his 4 points above, except that I should point out that you are exactly wrong about MOS:COMMA and MOS:OXFORD, which says: "Editors may use either convention [that is, Oxford comma or no Oxford comma] so long as each article is internally consistent." MOS:VAR provides that if an article already has chosen a style, then do not change it without first gathering a consensus to do so. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:02, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

So, are you saying that the original text should be kept unless a consensus is drawn? Editz2341231 (talk) 14:11, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Are you talking about the quotations in my original input? If so, I merely scanned through the text that you reverted and I "copyed" (as you will) on my original message for a talk. I'm not good at remembering text that well but I'm sure, for a person with a keen lexicon like yourself, would remember what text I was referencing to. For your other point, the version that I put"until her death in 2016." is preferable because it avoids potential ambiguity. "Until she died" is...I guess grammatically correct...but slightly more abrupt, whereas "until her death" sounds more formal and smooth in biographical writing. Editz2341231 (talk) 14:07, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

• The older version was better, I think. There's certainly no reason to change to serial commas - that's nothing more than personal choice in most cases, and adding them in the edits here didn't improve the article. The other changes to the text were, I think, a step backwards, rather than an improvement. - SchroCat (talk) 14:39, 29 March 2025 (UTC)