Hi, Rupert,
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 1:46 AM, rupert THURNER <rupert.thurner(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
hahaha, charlotte, i really like your attitude and
passion!
let me give a completely different example where i fell into a similar
trap. at that time, when i was young, stupid and idealistic ....
at that time, it bothered me a little that articles contained miles, foot
and inches. so i started to convert it slowly to the metric system. i even
started to search for miles and converting it systematically. and it ended
up, that i did not make any other edits but these ones. of course it
attracted "real americans" who made clear that this is not the right way
forward. and it attracted admins.
Thank you so much for such a kind, supportive, good humored and helpful
reply, but I feel rather guilty that in my effort to "anonymize" my recent
"series of unfortunate events," I may have confused you as to the nature of
my disputed edits. If so, I apologize.
The usage edits I'd been making hadn't had *anything* at all to do with
"Americanizing" (or otherwise "localizing") English usage. The
correct
English usage for the words at issue is absolutely *identical* in the U.S.,
the U.K., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc.
In fact, when I'd first learned of his misunderstanding this, I'd rushed to
the Recent Changes Patroller's user page to explain just that, and both to *
quote* for him and provide a *direct link* to a highly respected
*British*dictionary's usage entry for the words in order to
demonstrate to him
unequivocally that there was *nothing* at all "local" about the usage
standard I'd been following in my edits.
I'm proficient to a greater or lesser (mostly lesser) degree in several
foreign languages, and when I read websites in such languages, my greatest
confusion and frustrations are usually caused by typos or usage errors, so
I'm particularly sensitive to how such errors on English language websites
like the English Wikipedia can likewise confuse and frustrate non-native
English speakers. That's partly why this task had occurred to me, although
if a usage error is egregious enough it can badly confuse even a native
English speaker as to a writer's intended meaning, especially younger ones.
As for reverts, he's the only one who made any!
I'd explained in my very first post to his user page that I had *no *desire
whatsoever to engage in an edit war with him and therefore I didn't. The
reason I'm no longer interested in editing Wikipedia is *not* because he (or
anyone else) disagreed with or misunderstood my edits, *per se*, but rather
because of the *way* I was *treated* not only by him, but also by the two
other editors I mentioned in my last email to Sue, as well as what I then
came to observe over a period of several days of typical Wikipedia
"community" behavior, which I'd had no reason to look at closely before.
It's not that I can't cope with spirited debate (heck, I'm professionally
trained in it!) but rather that the kind of bullying that I now realize is *
rampant* in the English language Wikipedia's culture *turns my stomach* and
in my opinion is highly unlikely to improve anytime soon due to Wikipedia's
*own* structure and policies, no matter how earnest the efforts of the many
fine folks on this list (although I wish them the very best of luck and hope
they prove me wrong!). I have many different options as to how to spend my
free time and Wikipedia simply doesn't "make the grade" anymore: life is
too
darn short to put up with such garbage unless I'm being very well-paid for
it!
You don't strike me, Rupert, as being remotely lazy or stupid, and I thank
you again for taking the time to respond, as well as for your kind comments!
Best,
Charlotte