I'm purely arts, but do understand difficulties. Presumed comfortabilities over hex and # etc. Simple notions like anglo v american english in articles such things are pretty standard. My post wasn't about projects, and the only project I was involved with was a cover all (Espenaza) which was deleted for the simple reason you described. GFDL is quite specific you accept that anything you add will be scraped to the bone or deleted. The problem with 3RR is that old editors have preference over newer users and it doesn't just suck nothing moves on. If Scientific articles we are using as source use notion contrary to the page norm they can be bracketed. It does not effect the overall quality or an article. We all lose sense in wikipedia but few of us have a voice mike33

And hopefully that discussion will include some talk about the

...

pernicious amount of OWNership that goes on. Quite often, if you haven't

already been contributing to a page for quite a while, you'll be summarily reverted if you edit the article and ignored if you post to talk. I've also noticed some Wikiprojects, or at least some members, being particularly bad about thinking that articles in their area are "theirs". Wikiprojects don't OWN articles any more than any individual does, the community as a whole does. I recall seeing a comment at an AfD

I recently closed, something to the effect of "This needs to run another five days, Wikiproject Chemistry wasn't notified!" and shaking my head in disbelief. Wikiproject Chemistry doesn't decide what happens to that article (nor should they be CANVASSed so that they de facto can), the whole community does. (As it was, it was kept anyway.)

This is, of course, only something one person said, and may not at all reflect the actual viewpoint of most in Wikiproject Chemistry. But it certainly reflects the "Hey, this is OUR turf!" mentality that happens all too often.

In another case, where the use of binary vs. decimal prefixes for data capacities was being debated, it was frequently asserted that "contributors" to an article should have the final say, "contributor" defined as someone who's made a substantial number of edits to it. Talk about having it exactly backward-anyone who makes a good-faith, non-vandal edit to an article is a contributor to said article. This is another example of the nasty, pernicious, "my turf" attitude.

There are countless others-the relentless hostility toward those who cut

or delete (does anyone know what "editor" actually means?), reverting new contributors who make poor but good-faith edits instead of educating them, and the list goes on and on and on.

I hope we can come up with a solution to this at some point. We're sure in need of one. Maybe we could start by placing this notice at the -top- of the edit page, in bold, red, 40-point type:

"If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, *do not submit it*."

---