This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Montana, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Montana on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MontanaWikipedia:WikiProject MontanaTemplate:WikiProject MontanaMontana articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Dakota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of South Dakota on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South DakotaWikipedia:WikiProject South DakotaTemplate:WikiProject South DakotaSouth Dakota articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States courts and judges, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States federal courts, courthouses, and United States federal judges on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States courts and judgesWikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judgesTemplate:WikiProject United States courts and judgesUnited States courts and judges articles
I have restored a stable version of the page and implore you to discuss here instead of making any further reverts. Because you essentially rebuilt this page from the ground up in August, calling my cleanup of your changes "anemic" seems like a misrepresentation. Your changes, among other things, introduced numerous errors and oddities. The lede, for example, read Leo Giacometto...was a US Army officer, politician, and lobbyist. Removing American violates MOS:CONTEXTBIO. For some reason, all dates had been changed to the month, day, year format. Given that the subject of this page is American, this format is nonsensical. The "personal life" section was moved from the (traditional) bottom of the page to the top and was combined with the customary "early life" section, which was removed entirely. Inexplicably, the "officeholder" infobox was converted into a regular "person" infobox, but with a smaller "officeholder" infobox nested inside via a module. Why? Also, Montana representative to the Northwest Power and Conservation Council is not a position that would help a figure satisfy WP:NPOL, so it didn't belong there. The infobox was also cluttered with needless blue links that included a list of employers (...why?). My edits have cut unnecessary clutter, specifically in the infobox. Novemberjazz01:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First, I'll address your reply here:
Removing American violates MOS:CONTEXTBIO. In the version of 01:42 UTC, 28 September, the lead reads, "Leo Anthony Giacometto (14 May 1962 – 8 August 2022) was an American US Army officer, politician, and lobbyist." I did not remove the demonymic adjective in my recent edit.
The 'personal life' section was moved from the (traditional) bottom of the page to the top and was combined with the customary 'early life' section, which was removed entirely. I can't speak to your traditions. MOS:BODY says, "Very short sections and subsections clutter an article with headings and inhibit the flow of the prose." Therefore, to avoid a 26-word/147-character section (only six times longer than the header itself), the entirety of personal life was included under a header that succinctly covered all the prose.
Inexplicably, the "officeholder" infobox was converted into a regular "person" infobox, but with a smaller "officeholder" infobox nested inside via a module. Why? The subject was a US Army officer for approximately 23 years, and an office-holder for maybe seven. Neither of those supersedes the other, certainly by no codified consensus of which I'm aware. Fortunately, {{infobox person}} affords multiple embedded infoboxes, allowing both {{infobox state representative}} and {{infobox military person}} to be included equally.
Also, Montana representative to the Northwest Power and Conservation Council is not a position that would help a figure satisfy WP:NPOL, so it didn't belong there. I don't see anything at Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians and judges regarding infoboxes whatsoever. It's certainly possible I misinterpret the sources cited, but it seems that was a governmental office position held by Giacometto.
The infobox was also cluttered with needless blue links that included a list of employers (...why?). Because they are notable businesses who employed the article subject, the very purpose of the |employer= parameter.
My edits have cut unnecessary clutter, specifically in the infobox. That's disputed. As I mentioned in my edit summary, the purpose of the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is to hash out such things. You've decided to add additional Rs to that abbreviation, but at least you're here.
As for the edits I made, I'll explain them more fully here (having already done so with concision in my edit summary):
I replaced {{birth date}} & {{death date and age}} because all three infoboxes employed say to do so. You removed them again.
I used {{infobox state representative}} because the grosser template says, "{{Infobox officeholder}} is incorporated into the following templates (i.e. all the templates listed here). Please use the most appropriate name when placing this template on a page." You replaced the less-specific template.
I removed the links to Bahrain because MOS:OL says, "the following are usually not linked: […] The names of subjects with which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar. This generally includes major examples of: countries (e.g., Japan/Japanese, Brazil/Brazilian)." This linking was already removed once by Robby.is.on (talk·contribs). You've replaced that linking twice.
The {{use dmy dates}} template stipulated the use of day-month-year dates in the article. Granted, it should probably be replaced with {{use mdy dates}}, but the template and the article's date formatting need to be the same. You have continued to leave the formatting template atop the article.
I replaced the specific wording of "US Army" in the lead—because it's more specific than "military"—while leaving the national demonym you added. You instead reverted wholesale, accusing me of removing the demynym.
You have, for reasons unexplained, removed Giacometto's full name from the body of the article. The article now fails to cite any source for the full name, in contravention of the policy at Wikipedia:Verifiability. You have done this twice.
You have now twice (a) reduced sentence spacing to the singular and (b) added full stops to the abbreviation for United States. IAW MOS:PUNCTSPACE & MOS:USA, this is unnecessary and the previous versions were equally correct. You have made this unnecessary change twice.
You removed the wiki-linking from Montana Military Academy and Montana Department of Agriculture (though strangely not Mongolia Fund). Wikipedia:Red link says, "In general, a red link should remain in an article if it links to a title that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there is no existing article, or article section, under any name. Remove red links if and only if Wikipedia should not have an article on the subject." This wouldn't seem to apply where you removed the linking, but nonetheless did twice.
MOS:DECOR links to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons#Encyclopedic purpose, which says, "Icons should serve an encyclopedic purpose and not merely be decorative. They should provide additional useful information on the article subject, serve as visual cues that aid the reader's comprehension, or improve navigation." As {{flag|United States Army}} provides nothing in addition to "United States Army" (and the inexplicably removed "US Army Reserve"), it serves no encyclopedic purpose in the infobox, but was added twice anyway.
There were some reversions I couldn't list in my edit summary due to length constraints, such as: + cited prose removed without explanation; + wiki-replacement in article that mentions both US state and federal politicking; + replacement of spouse's photo removed without explanation. I also made some small changes that I included under + copyedit, such as rephrasing "Giacometto was the director of the Montana Department of Agriculture" to the less-wordy "Giacometto was the Montana Department of Agriculture director", and adding past tense for now-dead subject; you reverted these as well.I look forward to your continued discussion. — Fourthords | =Λ= |13:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a little over three hours since your comment here. I promise, I don't mean to rush you, I just want to be sure before continuing on with or without your permission: is the other 87.5% of your reply still pending? — Fourthords | =Λ= |18:23, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it would be more productive to capitulate on some minor issues rather than responding point-by-point to the WP:CHUNKs you presented. I won't assume what "continuing on" means to you, but I will remind you that (per WP:ONUS) The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Maybe you could create an WP:RFC to achieve this. Novemberjazz19:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I confess that I'm confused. I answered your questions about my edits, and you point to your essay about verbosity-as-obstructionism.I cited policies, guidelines, manuals, and infobox instructions. I appreciate your gracious permission to make two changes IAW WP:V & MOS:DECOR, but I was expecting more of an explanation for the reimplementation of your edits in light of my explanations. Do you dispute those consensuses to which I linked? I also explained other edits with logic and contextual interpretation. If you don't actually have any objections to my explanations, I'll willingly reimplement my edits.The instructions at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion speak only to article content, not its presentation. That concerns a scant percentage of our discussion here, but I'll address it. As best as I can tell, you've only removed three small bits of cited prose in the article: the subject's full name, those of his children, and Giacometto's 2001 state salary. Aside from the inadequate "copyedits and cleanup throughout", I've not seen explanation for removing any of that information. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content, yet you haven't disputed anything; you've only repeatedly removed content under the umbrella of "copyedits and cleanup throughout". Again, the D of WP:BRDRDWP:BRD refers to discussion, and you've not participated in one for these removals (or most of the other edits). — Fourthords | =Λ= |21:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's been about 1.5 months since my questions and prompts immediately above, and no editors have responded. As I said then, "I'll [now] willingly reimplement my edits." I'll make the DMY-to-MDY change while I'm in there. — Fourthords | =Λ= |01:54, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, Wikipedia:Requests for comment says, Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. You have failed profoundly at this elementary step, precluding an RFC. In the 7.2 months since I duly addressed your questions and concerns, your only concession thereto was to graciously permit the application of the site-wide verifiability policy and manual of style (which you nonetheless reverted yet again).As for consensus, of the ten Wikipedians who've edited here in the past 248 days, only you have taken issue with its state and made wholesale unexplained reversions in contravention of the project's policies, guidelines, and manuals.Lastly, you've yet again dropped the shortcut "WP:ONUS", but as I said above on 28 September 2022—in case you missed it there—you haven't disputed anything; you've only repeatedly removed content under the umbrella of 'copyedits and cleanup throughout'. — Fourthords | =Λ= |17:21, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since you're the only one reverting edits without explanation, and are ignoring the existing discussion that you once "implored", I think it would be valuable to hear from you, first. The progression has been: you were dragged to this talk page → you requested explanations for my changes → I explained all the changes, citing policies, guidelines, manuals, and consensuses → you replied without addressing my explanation and resumed reverting all other editors. I'm sanguine to pretend its still 28 September 2022 if you want to actually respond to my explanation that you first requested. — Fourthords | =Λ= |20:16, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please let me know if you like this revision. Your infobox is largely intact, without employers. Early life now includes education and is a separate section. Personal life is at the bottom, without the large portrait of his second wife. Novemberjazz21:48, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I don't entirely mind discarding our previous lengthy discussion.
Firstly, your sections suggest that Giacometto's early life is somehow distinct from his personal life. In what way is his early life and education not part of his personal life? Why are you suggesting that his early life and personal life are different things? You do see the logical disconnect, yes?
Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#US is agnostic on the use of "US" versus "U.S.", but only one of those causes the |birth_place= variable to overrun the field and put those four characters on their own separate line. Why the preference for unnecessarily inserting a line-break between "South Dakota" and the country? Also, why an unexplained preference for the longer than the shorter, at all? You haven't explained this when I asked before.
In the "Military" section, you removed the Mongolia Fund citation for both active-duty Army and Army Reserves service, instead citing OpenSecrets, which isn't as clear on that matter. Would clarity and specificity in our citations be an acceptable SOP?
You removed the specification of US Senate from the fourth paragraph under "Politics", leaving it up to the reader to guess whether we're still discussing state politics at that point (i.e. the Montana Senate) versus the national-level office. I'm still unsure why you're preferring non-specificity, but I would strongly recommend we make that important distinction.
There's a stray greater-than sign following the Montana Standard source. I shan't make that fix myself, lest you revert it, but I thought I'd point it out to you.
Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Spacing is pretty clear that double-spacing after a full stop is an acceptable practice. I pointed this out previously; why have you continued to collapse that spacing to make it more difficult to edit?
I hope your edits here are indicative of your continued engagement in the discussion! This project is literally 100% about communication, so thanks for showing up. I appreciate it. — Fourthords | =Λ= |22:36, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In my mind, the typical early life section includes information about a subject's birthplace, birth date, and education. If there is no biographical data, I have seen sections that include education only. Personal life includes information about marriage, family, children, religious affiliation, hobbies or interests (if relevant), etc.
I use U.S. over US when I write. To me, U.S. reads like an acronym for United States and US reads like "us," as in This Is Us or Among Us. Just my opinion, though.
Removing the Mongolia Fund citation was accidental. I restored an older version of that page. The removal/replacement of any citation was not purposeful.
Any person who reads Senator Conrad Burns can click on the blue link if they are confused or unclear on national vs. state-level office.
I do not see the value of an image of Giacometto's second wife on the page. A picture of them together, absolutely! A picture of just her, no, especially because there are no other pictures on the page.
Stray greater than sign was unintentional. Typo perhaps. Or a reference formatting error.
In my experience editing in the American politics subject area, MOS:JOBTITLES is observed in prose and not in infoboxes. I'm not sure if there was an RFC about this at some point, but there have been discussions. Nevertheless, the d in "Director" and M in "Member" are also capitalized. These are not the start of sentences or proper nouns. As I have said above, I don't think the regional position should be in the infobox at all. Wikipedia isn't a resume, and the career section provides more detail that the infobox does not.
Thank you for your continued participation and dialogue. I hope you don't interpret my occasional frustration or terseness as dismissiveness or aggression. This is not intentional. Novemberjazz23:02, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently either Wikipedia or I accidentally unwatched this page, so I didn't see your reply. My apologies for not being more on-the-ball.
In my mind, the typical early life section Are you referring to a codified SOP for this? How is "early life" not part and parcel of "personal life" though; having them separate implies the former is somehow not the latter?
Just my opinion, though. So is your opinion to prefer the uncontrolled variable overflow onto the second line?
...if they are confused or unclear on national vs. state-level office. Oh, we absolutely should not be requiring readers to follow links to preclude confusion (for many reasons)!
I do not see the value of an image of Giacometto's second wife on the page. If we have uncopyrighted media with which to enhance an article, why wouldn't we? You may not get anything out of it, but if somebody might, and it's not NFC, why not use it?
I'll be extra careful to keep the page watched this time, but I'll also set a weeklong reminder to come back in case SNAFU is the name of the game, again. — Fourthords | =Λ= |20:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wound up delaying my reply for two weeks because I was out of town. I'm going to go ahead and implement changes in line with my explanations immediately above. If you find you must revert them before continuing discussion, I promise not to get bent out of shape while we hammer out your objections. Cheers. — Fourthords | =Λ= |19:38, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}