Excuse me, a short question: With 'lede' you mean 'lead', right?
-- Alvaro On 21-01-2009, at 18:11, "S" <[email protected]> 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 > [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
