[WikiEN-l] (no subject)

[Alvaro García]

Excuse me, a short question: With 'lede' you mean 'lead', right?


--
Alvaro

On 21-01-2009, at 18:11, "S" <owl at spaz.org> wrote:

> Long time since I've posted
>
> I made two edits to the Jesus article. The first dealt with the lede
> paragraph, and the second dealt with the etymology section. Leadwind
> reverted the edit and left a brief message: (reverted recent edits,  
> lede
> should be 4 paragraphs not 5, controversy issue is not cited, see  
> talk). I
> explained my edit on the talk. After I waited a while, Leadwind had  
> not
> responded, so I restored my version, and considering his comments I
> removed paragraph I added on controversy.
>
> Slrubenstein came along reverted my edits without comment or  
> explanation
> on talk. I explained my edit on the talk page and the comment line  
> again
> and waited a while for a reply. After a while I decided he was either
> somewhere else, in which case I would restore my version and we  
> would deal
> with it when he got back, or else he was acting like an edit ninja  
> and I
> could disregard him altogether. We were both cautioned about 3RR and  
> the
> version stood as I left it - still with no discussion on the present
> issues from SLR. SLR commented on a previous issue which we were  
> dealing
> with on the talk, but at that point we were dealing with the first  
> issue
> of the lede, and on that he still said nothing. Nothing at all to  
> back up
> his revert.
>
> Orangemarlin came along and did the same thing. Instead of no  
> comment at
> all, he simply said the issue was NPOV. I waited for an actual  
> explanation
> on talk. Nothing, so I restored my version again, telling him that  
> wasn't
> good enough just to call something NPOV without discussing it and  
> backing
> it up. Fair enough?
>
> So, in dealing with two edit ninjas, neither of whom gave two cents  
> worth
> of reasoning for their reverts, on either comment or talk, other than
> NPOV. Now I don't know about you, but I have a problem with people
> claiming ownership of articles such that they think they don't have to
> deal with the actual content of an edit such as mine.
>
> I got hit with warnings about "edit warring," and I was blocked. SLR  
> now
> claims on AN3 that I am "lying" and conjectures that I "will no doubt
> respond to this either by dismissing me, or attacking me, or with some
> irrelevant ramble." Indeed. Of course, his explanation is not  
> faithful to
> today's chronology, and has nothing to do with his reverts
> today, and he instead is dealing with a separate issue. Two separate
> issues, and separate edits. He has been responsive on the controversy
> issue, but not on the issue of the lede, and his unqualified reverts.
>
> Now, in the course of yesterdays issues, SLR and I exchanged a few  
> jabs.
> He called me a subtle anti-Semite, and I insinuated that he was a  
> peddler
> of anti-Christian dogma disguised as scholarship. Other choice words  
> such
> as "irrational" have been thrown around. I think I kept my cool for  
> the
> most part.
>
> I happen to really think the edit ninja concept is wonderful; it
> identifies a certain kind of editor that we've had on WP all along,  
> (and
> now have a name for) without actually resorting to the use of an  
> epithet,
> which one might feel quite inclined to do. I have respect for SLR, and
> have dealt with him for years. But his apparent responsiveness  
> yesterday
> vanished today, and he acted like just another edit ninja.  
> Orangemarlin
> followed suit, and likewise offered no substantive reason for  
> asserting
> one version over another. He could have just left it alone, as SLR  
> and I
> apparently were, as we both recieved 3RR warnings. But he didn't.  
> He, like
> other admins like to do stuck his nose in without reason, and without
> addressing the substance.
>
> Am I being a jerk here? ...For assuming that I deserve some kind of  
> actual
> response and rationale when someone decides to just undo what Ive  
> done?
> Should I just infer that other people know better than I do, and they
> should be able to just basically screw with people whenever they  
> want to?
>
> Stevertigo
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l