Hi, Rupert,

On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 1:46 AM, rupert THURNER <rupert.thurner@gmail.com> 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