That’s not an “editorial comment” like inserting a judgement about what Wilbo523 said. That’s a simple, marked indication of Wilbo523 was saying. Rather than quoting
(see post 60)
She paraphrased what her previous comment had been that Wilbo was responding to. That is the formal method I was taught in school for clarifying within quoted material. Same as using ellipses (…) to show omitted material. Are you saying we now can’t use ellipses or “[snip]” to indicate when we shorten a quote? I think you are misapplying the rule about not editing what someone says.
For the record, since it’s a lonnnnng thread: Wilbo523’s original post was #60. Silver Fire’s tampering with the quote was in post #64.
In Post #69, Wilbo523 objects that the tampering was distorting the original.
In Post #71, Silver Fire apologized for the tampering.
Spectre of P’s moderator comments came in Post #149.
[QUOTE]
tags is sacrosanct. Normal editorial rules apply: that is, you may indicate omitted portions of a quote by the use of ellipses “…” and you may add text to clarify a word using square brackets (e.g., “her [the sister’s] friend”), but you may **not ** add editorial comments or edit a quote so as to change the substantive meaning; nor may you substitute text such as “some blather” or “more nonsense” inside the
Seems to me that Spectre’s call was fine, although it does come perhaps a trifle late, it’s a good reminder to everyone.
Ummm…no, she didn’t. She apologized IF her editorial clarification misrepresented Wilbo’s intent. The only complaint I can see is that she should have said, “[You said I displayed helicopter parenting]” or “[In response to my request for an example of helicopter parenting]”
It seems to me that you just quoted a rule that says why Silver Fire’s edit was 100% acceptable. “[Y]ou may add text to clarify a word using square brackets (e.g., “her [the sister’s] friend”).” And that’s exactly what **SF **did: instead of quoting two posts, **SF **summarized the first one.
Now, **SF **may have summarized it incorrectly, but that doesn’t change the fact that it was *not an editorial comment *and, as such, Spectre’s note was completely off-base.
To use your hypothetical from the rule, if I said “her [the mother’s] friend” because I misunderstood who was being talked about, would I get a note for editorializing?
Silver Fire was not editorializing. She was attempting to clarify the antecedant of the phrase “Right here”.
Any misrepresentation was unintentional. It was Silver Fire’s understanding of what he said, not a deliberate misrepresentation.
Frankly, I’m confused by Wilbo523’s complaint, because Silver Fire’s comment that he was addressing is
Silver Fire was equating “not staying out of it” with "helicopter parenting. Wilbo didn’t clarify that he was making a distinction, he just said “Right here.”
I took that to mean he was saying that was an example of her helicopter parenting. After the fact he points out that he was making the distinction, saying the “Right here” was only in response to “not staying out of it” and was only an indicator of being “on the way” to helicopter parenting. Like that is a distinction of significance.
Silver Fire apologized for any inadvertant misrepresentation, and the distinction was a subtle nuance that was easily missed.
This was not a rules violation, it was a mistake in understanding.
The bolding of “reminder” was mine to ask a question. Where does bolding within a quote for emphasis fall; assuming you admit up front that you did the bolding? I’ve done that a couple times and can’t recall anything being said on it.