221:. How can you devote as much of your life to Knowledge (XXG) as you do while constantly approaching it as a battle? Doesn't that get exhausting? Would you have treated me with more civility if you didn't mistake me for whichever loathed editor had the gall to go "to a page work to back another editor"? Or would you still have jumped right in hurling verbal rocks? Yet you wonder why we can't achieve peace in the Middle East. Peace unto you. Bye.
131:? You have even less right to imply-- through insinuation, abuse of power, and after-the-fact editing-- to any observer who doesn't bother to do the digging, that I recklessly made the edit without bothering to read the linked page. Ha ha, silly ojh2, it contradicts you in the very first sentence! Did you not even bother glancing at the linked article?
196:
as long as all the other edits combined. 93% of my past edits were fixing punctuation, grammar, and spelling issues; reverting vandalism; adding links to pages where they should be; and marking dead links. That's it. In nearly a decade I've contributed less than a paragraph of text in actual editing.
195:
In your angry rush to check how old my account is, did you bother looking at the actual activity? I'll spare you the trouble; my previous response to you was longer than all of my 8 years of other edits combined. And discounting just communicating with people on their talk pages, it's basically twice
191:
Look, I was going to respond to your points, but the way you've treated me makes nauseous to even look at the wiki editor screen anymore, so I'll keep it brief. I saw the paranoid insanity you put here before correcting it, and I realize that you're in full on war mode, and there's no point in trying
207:
Remember Hanlon's Razor. Behavior that appears malicious to experienced
Wikipedians is more likely caused by ignorance of our expectations and rules. Why am I familiar with advanced wiki formatting techniques? Because I was in charge of KM at my old job and administered an internal wiki for 4 years.
144:
Reverting tends to be hostile, making editing
Knowledge (XXG) unpleasant. Sometimes this provokes a reciprocal hostility of re-reversion. Sometimes it also leads to editors departing Knowledge (XXG), temporarily or otherwise, especially the less bellicose. This outcome is clearly detrimental to the
139:
Even if you find an article was slightly better before an edit, in an area where opinions could differ, you should not revert that edit, especially if you are the author of the prior text. The reason for this is that authors and others with past involvement in an article have a natural prejudice in
133:
Perhaps your tenure as an editor has left you extremely jaded. From your User and Talk pages I can see that you are frequently involved in very heated and contentious arguments. Perhaps you've forgotten that not every edit is a battle, a war, a personal affront, or a political declaration. While I
21:
You broke the 1 Revert per 24 hours rule at Price Tag Policy. And, if you examine the 'balance of terror' page you will see that the term is more broadly used than is usually the case. You are obliged to revert your edit if you wish to retain your editing rights and a clean record here, but if you
199:
You know why? Because the very first day I created my account, some asshole editor on a power trip jumped down my throat for a tiny, insignificant issue. And I wanted nothing to do with a society filled with people like that. You just refreshed that feeling and ensured I'm never going to bother
126:
edit-- not a reversion-- stating that the newly updated page is now relevant, justifying linking to it. But you have no right to invalidate my contributions with heedless revision. And it is a contribution; links provide context and meaning, and you can be just as libelous in links and
246:
and detect nothing there to warrant either animosity nor charges of bellicosity, anger and paranoid insanity. I'm very familiar with the last phenomenon, in practice and theory, and I know how to read with a fair degree of literacy what I and others do or say. Let's leave it at
98:
But surreptitiously editing a page after the fact does not retroactively justify your actions. In fact, it serves to justify my original edit-- prior to your edit, there was not a single character of relevant information on the page.
53:
explicitly notes that the page is under a 1R restriction, and you didn't obviously check. You removed a link that had been there, untroubled, for a long time, and when the WP:CONSENSUS version was restored, you immediately reverted
85:
in the first sentence of the 'Balance of Terror' page. Had you, 'you wouldn't have made' the reflex edit, but looked around. Famiiarity with usage, would have shown that it can be used in an extended metaphorical
294:
Regarding which, by the way, you seem very active for a "retired editor". I'm also not sure where exactly you derive the authority to think that you would have any standing to threaten that will revert it if I
192:
to communicate with you, as you've already authored this story in your mind and cast me as your enemy. But hopefully you'll at least learn a lesson that will have you treat someone else better down the road...
103:
There is nothing 'surreptitious' about improving a page which is shown to be inexact when another editor draws the wrong conclusions from it. As your remarks show, you misunderstood the new page, and I fixed
134:
was searching for your purported 1R rule, I came across all of the following on various
Knowledge (XXG) policy pages. Perhaps they will serve a reminder of a more civil time in your past experience.
281:. Frontloading such an article with all of the exceptional references, given the paucity of actual references, seems a little backwards-- especially considering there is a perfectly acceptable "
46:
That aside, the only situations wherein a 1RR policy is in place is when such a restriction is explicitly placed on a user or page. In the absence of such a restriction, as is the case here,
208:
Why do I show a close knowledge of wiki procedures? Because I'm intelligent and conscientious, and I actually went and read all of the relevant policy pages before my first response to you.
174:
You self-style yourself as a 'newcomer', having registered under this name in August 2006? I've seen this scenario hundreds of times, and most editors understand it.
149:
140:
favor of the status quo, so your finding that the article was better before might just be a result of that. Also, Knowledge (XXG) likes to encourage editing.
201:
73:"If you examine the 'balance of terror' page you will see that the term is more broadly used than is usually the case". It sure does show that!
238:
Sorry to see you (over)react in this way. I've reviewed the two edits I made, one a revert, the other a neutral courtesy note on your page
128:
285:" section in which to make that point, if for some reason you're adverse to adding an even more appropriate, distinct section
67:
211:
Why should it even fucking matter how old my account is, or how knowledgeable of formatting and process I am? Try treating
145:
development of
Knowledge (XXG). Thus, fair and considered thought should be applied to all reversions given all the above.
215:
with respect. I'm sure you're familiar with the Five
Pillars of Islam... what about the Five Pillars of Knowledge (XXG)?
40:
I am not entirely sure how I could have violated a "1 revert per 24 hours" policy, considering I only made
153:
Be prepared to apologize. In animated discussions, we often say things we later wish we had not. Say so.
50:
371:
252:
179:
109:
91:
59:
27:
361:
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AOjh2&diff=608929402&oldid=608929184
77:. If the page had that content in the first place, I wouldn't have made the edit I did.
248:
175:
105:
87:
55:
23:
324:
147:
If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining
Knowledge (XXG), ignore it.
222:
160:
335:
277:
It could be done much nicer. The article is, neologisms notwithstanding,
349:
304:
I assume that's what "having hear in formatting" was supposed to mean?
372:
https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers
256:
230:
183:
31:
325:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary
81:
You didn't, following the link, take in the implication of
218:
Editors should treat each other with respect and civility
127:
meta-information as you can in text. Wouldn't you agree,
200:
trying to contribute to
Knowledge (XXG) again. I'm sure
360:
243:
239:
336:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules
156:Recognize your own biases, and keep them in check.
8:
350:https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Etiquette
345:
343:
317:
270:
7:
22:don't either I or someone else will.
14:
204:would be proud of your behavior.
150:Please do not bite the newcomers
1:
202:WikiProject Editor Retention
279:"about the Cold War policy"
66:the policy in place is the
391:
167:) 01:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
112:) 06:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
94:) 06:54, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
62:) 06:51, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
257:09:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
231:09:22, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
226:
184:07:02, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
164:
32:21:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
169:
158:
122:are obliged to make a
137:
51:Talk:Price tag policy
38:
42:1 revert altogether
68:Three revert rule
382:
374:
369:
363:
358:
352:
347:
338:
333:
327:
322:
305:
302:
296:
292:
286:
275:
390:
389:
385:
384:
383:
381:
380:
379:
378:
377:
370:
366:
359:
355:
348:
341:
334:
330:
323:
319:
314:
309:
308:
303:
299:
293:
289:
276:
272:
267:
19:
12:
11:
5:
388:
386:
376:
375:
364:
353:
339:
328:
316:
315:
313:
310:
307:
306:
297:
287:
269:
268:
266:
263:
262:
261:
260:
259:
189:
188:
187:
186:
155:
154:
152:
148:
146:
143:
141:
135:
132:
117:
116:
114:
113:
96:
95:
72:
71:
64:
63:
45:
36:
18:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
387:
373:
368:
365:
362:
357:
354:
351:
346:
344:
340:
337:
332:
329:
326:
321:
318:
311:
301:
298:
291:
288:
284:
280:
274:
271:
264:
258:
254:
250:
245:
241:
237:
236:
235:
234:
233:
232:
228:
224:
220:
219:
214:
209:
205:
203:
197:
193:
185:
181:
177:
173:
172:
171:
170:
168:
166:
162:
157:
151:
136:
130:
125:
121:
111:
107:
102:
101:
100:
93:
89:
84:
80:
79:
78:
76:
69:
61:
57:
52:
49:
48:
47:
43:
37:
34:
33:
29:
25:
16:
367:
356:
331:
320:
300:
290:
282:
278:
273:
217:
216:
212:
210:
206:
198:
194:
190:
159:
138:
123:
119:
115:
97:
82:
74:
65:
41:
39:
35:
20:
17:1R violation
312:References
249:Nishidani
176:Nishidani
129:Nishidani
118:As such,
106:Nishidani
88:Nishidani
56:Nishidani
24:Nishidani
213:everyone
83:usually
295:don't
265:Notes
247:that.
283:Uses
253:talk
244:here
242:and
240:here
227:talk
223:Ojh2
180:talk
165:talk
161:Ojh2
110:talk
92:talk
86:way.
60:talk
28:talk
142:...
124:new
120:you
104:it.
75:Now
54:it.
342:^
255:)
229:)
182:)
30:)
251:(
225:(
178:(
163:(
108:(
90:(
70:.
58:(
44:.
26:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.