1

The question I answered was this: The use of 'imperfecto' vs. 'indefinido' in two specific sentences

I gave an answer based on a formal, written article and provided the link. Included in the quote from the article was mention of a video, which appears under the text in the link. The author provided the video to illustrate his point. So, I included it in my citation.

A moderator edited my answer. He corrected one minor mistake (puede needed an n: pueden), removed the link to the cited article, locked the post and says there is a dispute. He said I had not provided the link to the video or that an additional link was needed. That is not so. One link covered both the article and the accompanying video.

Now, my locked answer looks completely wrong, especially since the link to the article was removed.

I agreed with the typo correction and am pretty upset about how my answer was completely changed to look wrong and without a link to the article. Originally, I had two upvotes. Now my answer looks ridiculous.

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2

I was the mod that did these changes.

Let's see how your post looked before I changed it in order to focus the debate on the key aspect here: you need to reference content properly.

3.4.1 El Pretérito Y El Imperfecto En La Narración Como hemos dicho, el pretérito sirve para expresar acciones ocurridas en el pasado, percibiéndolas como completas o en su totalidad. El imperfecto, por su parte, sirve para expresar acciones ocurridas en el pasado, enfocándose, no en su principio o en su final, sino en una parte del proceso, en su naturaleza cíclica o en su naturaleza continuada. Dado este contraste, el pretérito toma un aire de mayor definición y el imperfecto uno de indefinición. Esto hace que, si observamos el uso de uno y otro en narraciones nos demos cuenta que, con frecuencia, el imperfecto es usado para establecer el fondo de la narración, mientras que el pretérito sirve para avanzar la trama.

Escuchemos a continuación los dos primeros minutos del cuento de Caperucita Roja. Fíjate en el uso del pretérito y del imperfecto. [Se puede observar lo que dijo el autor, escuchando el cuento].

el pasado en la narración

Se puede utilisar los dos. Depende de como el autor quiere contar la historia.

I gave an answer based on a formal, written article and provided the link. Included in the quote from the article was mention of a video, which appears under the text in the link. The author provided the video to illustrate his point. So, I included it in my citation.

This is the key element here that triggered my edit. In How to reference material written by others we have clear guidelines on how to do so:

  1. Provide a link to the original page or answer
  2. Quote only the relevant portion
  3. Provide the name of the original author

You did fulfil 1, you quoted a bit too much (2) and you did not fulfil 3. I edited to accomplish the three points and indicated so in my edition (cito convenientemente y elimino parte final, pues no tiene sentido sin incrustar el vídeo).

You know why the edition was made and you seem to be ignoring our kind requests to quote properly. Please don't.

A moderator edited my answer. He corrected one minor mistake (puede needed an n: pueden), removed the link to the cited article, locked the post and says there is a dispute. He said I had not provided the link to the video or that an additional link was needed. That is not so. One link covered both the article and the accompanying video.

As I just said: please don't ignore our requirements. You are not new to the Stack Exchange network and perfectly know what the rules are regarding referencing external material.

In case you know to dig a bit more into the How to reference material written by others document, you can check some interesting answers to What to do about missing source attributions? and What's up with all these dictionary reference edits? in a site you also use, English.SE.

I was forced to lock the post in order to stop the ridiculous situation of you rolling back a moderator edit for the second time in less than 24 hours. Locking is a resource we mods use to try to reach some consensous before going on in an edit war.

I agreed with the typo correction and am pretty upset about how my answer was completely changed to look wrong and without a link to the article. Originally, I had two upvotes. Now my answer looks ridiculous.

This is false. I just quoted properly and corrected some grammar mistakes and typos.

Regarding the rest of the things:

  • Currently, embedding a video is not supported. You can insert a SoundCloud audio, as it was done in this answer. This is why the part of your answer quoting escuchemos a continuación... was no sense. Instead, you can explain that the given link contains a YouTube video with an example. You can do so when the 24 hours lock is lifted.

  • In your 4th revision you added some extra text into your answer in order to illustrate my supposedly incorrect correction of como/cómo. While it is interesting to cross check corrections, please:

    • use comments to talk about the edits, since that part was not providing any useful content to the answer itself.
    • quote properly if you are copying content from the RAE website.

To sum up: do use proper references to resources and do not fall into edit wars. We want a quiet site with kind behaviours.

I am quite an editor myself and try my best to improve posts. Everyone has their style, but there are basic guidelines we need to follow.

9
  • Provide a link to the original page or answer: I did provide that with the link. Quote only the relevant portion: I did that too. I just went and rollbacked to the original answer. And: I kept your plural to puede, pueden. Also, I am not sure there was an author mentioned. If you look at the link carefully of my text, the video pops up. It is there, in the link and comes up on the page. Provide a link to the original page or answer
    – Lambie
    Commented Aug 23, 2018 at 20:53
  • tchrist says on that link you give: "The link is not mandatory, just useful where feasible. It is the actual textual citation itself, the one that says “Collins/ODO/M–W/OED/&c say. . . .” which is obligatory." So saying Real Academia Española is enough. For the rest, I should have put "quote marks" around my citation. But you had no right to remove my link; the link has the video in the destination page.
    – Lambie
    Commented Aug 23, 2018 at 21:04
  • Finally, kind behaviours? You were not kind to me. Your removed my link. Your post about citation come under the word Plagiarism in the rules. If you cite the dictionary, it's enough as tchirst points out. Plagiarism is for written text, not dictionary entries.
    – Lambie
    Commented Aug 23, 2018 at 21:11
  • 1
    @Lambie So saying Real Academia Española is enough. No. See How to reference material written by others, that is, the official guidelines, not what a specific user says.
    – fedorqui
    Commented Aug 24, 2018 at 6:29
  • 2
    @Lambie You know well what I am talking about and it is about how to reference material. You can add the reference to the video, the post is already unlocked, this is tangential to the topic. In my opinion, a text saying Escuchemos a continuación los dos primeros minutos del cuento de Caperucita Roja. Fíjate en el uso del pretérito y del imperfecto does not have any value if you cannot see the video in the post itself. I would go for If you check the page you'll see... bla bla, but that is just personal views that are not relevant to the main topic we are talking about in here.
    – fedorqui
    Commented Aug 24, 2018 at 6:33
  • Please understand what I am saying: If you add quote marks (inverted commas) to the entire block quote, then, it works: [...] "Escuchemos a continuación los dos primeros minutos del cuento de Caperucita Roja. Fíjate en el uso del pretérito y del imperfecto." That means it is on that linked page.
    – Lambie
    Commented Aug 24, 2018 at 13:22
  • And: "How to reference material written by others Plagiarism - posting the work of others with no indication that it is not your own - is frowned on by our community, and may result in your answer being down-voted or deleted." I gave name of the dictionary and the definition. Lawyers do it, academics do it, writers do it, newspapers do it. For example: abc.es/sociedad/… Citing the dictionary and definition is enough. You may ask the site's head honchos if you don't believe me....
    – Lambie
    Commented Aug 24, 2018 at 13:33
  • 2
    You are contradicting yourself by saying both that you were linking the page and then also stating that that given link was a way to show a video. I won't go ahead, you already know how to do it and there is no point on repeating the same over and over. Good to see you fixed this in your last edit.
    – fedorqui
    Commented Aug 24, 2018 at 14:27
  • No, and I have now fixed the block quote and put the whole thing in inverted commas so the "Escuchemos a continuación etc." is part of my quote. Now, it works better. You click on the link, read the text and then see the video. Yes, the video is on the page in the link. I am not contradicting myself. You are not understanding me.
    – Lambie
    Commented Aug 24, 2018 at 14:38

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .