User talk:2001:8003:9008:1301:6898:816A:2928:D089

Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you. El_C 04:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

My style is not unusual. When talking about our home planet, the article 'the' is generally omitted, just like when we talk about our home, we say home instead of the home. Please refer to Earth and its related articles as a reference. Thanks. 2001:8003:9008:1301:6898:816A:2928:D089 (talk) 05:01, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Your style is either unusual or just unnecessary. Please don't continue making these edits while this complaint is left outstanding. Thank you. El_C 05:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Look, this is becoming disruptive — please stop making these edits, or your access to editing may be revoked. El_C 05:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Are you an admin? Even you are, could you please explain what did you mean? By saying other people is disruptive without giving a clear explanation only make things more confusing. I have made my point above already, but I haven't heard any proper response from you other than threatening to revert my edits. Did I make any vandalisms? No, so what for? Please have some mutual respect, mate. 2001:8003:9008:1301:6898:816A:2928:D089 (talk) 05:15, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

For the most part, you are making the articles worst —not better— with these type of edits. At best, the changes are simply unnecessary. I'm sorry, but you need to cease with the modality of those edits. El_C 05:23, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Which part? If you want to moderate other editor's good faith edits, what you should do is only edit the parts that clearly violate the rules and write a reference in your edit summary, not reverting everything they have done. If the other editor disagrees with your moderation, discuss with them by quoting the rule in their talk page. If they refuse to admit their violation and starts an edit war, then send them an official warning. I know it is time-consuming, but moderation is a Quality over Quantity thing. Every genuine editor, whether they are an admin or not, can be a good moderator if they could show respect to other people's work. 2001:8003:9008:1301:6898:816A:2928:D089 (talk) 06:01, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but there isn't enough worth salvaging for that to be a worthwhile endeavour. And I'm not going to use platitudes to look respectful. I already am respectful, have been, and will continue to be. Please, just go do something else aside from these mostly cosmetic edits. They are of little value. El_C 06:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

So even you have agreed that my edits had offered some little value, then why revert them without quoting any rules or discussion? Can't you just modify the parts which violate the rules? For you, it's just a press of button, but for others, they have spent some time to complete the edit. You have shown no respect by press that revert button carelessly and even worse, have shown disrespect by chasing and eliminating all similar edits by that editor. 2001:8003:9008:1301:6898:816A:2928:D089 (talk) 06:30, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

The edits were too subpar to be retained. You need to move to a different modality of edits. Contribute another way — in a way that does not involve such an excessive focus on cosmetic changes which, in your case, ultimately were of little value. El_C 06:36, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Little value is still better than no value, only vandalism should be reverted immediately. I reckon the Wikipedia community should be more inclusive rather than everything strictly controlled by the moderators. It will make life easier for all of us! 2001:8003:9008:1301:6898:816A:2928:D089 (talk) 08:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Bottom line: your changes, for the most part, were not an improvement. El_C 09:19, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Then why should it must be totally reverted? What is the core value of Wikipedia? I still don't get it. Some people warn other people not to start an edit war, but often it is those people who started it. 2001:8003:9008:1301:6898:816A:2928:D089 (talk) 09:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Refactoring

Unless it is clear vandalism, chasing other people's edits and revert all their edits without discussion first is a self-centred action which proved to be a source of conflict and is hurting Wikipedia very bad. I think we both like Wekipedia to be a pleasant place to share our knowledge, do we? Please always remember to refrain from abusing the reverting option when editing. Thank you. 2001:8003:9008:1301:6898:816A:2928:D089 (talk) 05:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I am an uninvolved Wikipedia administrator and I consider the type of edits you are making to be disruptive. El_C 05:10, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Really? So this is your reply? I have made my points in my talk page, but you have done nothing other than accusing my edits were disruptive. So whether an edit is disruptive or not is purely depending on an individual's personal judgment? What a joke, no wonder a lot of productive editors have left this platform since their efforts were not appreciated by those who constantly abuse their reverting option. Wikipedia is a joke, period. 2001:8003:9008:1301:6898:816A:2928:D089 (talk) 05:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that is my reply. As for the question of whether an edit is disruptive or not is purely depending on an individual's personal judgment? Yes, it is up to the individual admin's judgment when assessing what is or isn't disruptive at any given circumstance. El_C 05:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Really? So basically you are saying there are no rules to be followed. Wow, here is the truth, you are wasting your time reverting every other people's edit which you don't like until they got fed up and leave or you got fed up and quit. 2001:8003:9008:1301:6898:816A:2928:D089 (talk) 06:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

There are rules in the form of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines as well as Wikiepdia's Manual of Style — I try to adhere to both the former and the latter as much as I can. There is also Ignoring All Rules, which has to do with common sense prevailing over bureaucratic and wikilawyering arguments. El_C 06:19, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I can see what you are coming from now, but you have still not responded to the main issue. I reckon when writing about our home planet, the article 'the' should be omitted, there are plenty examples to support this editing style. 2001:8003:9008:1301:6898:816A:2928:D089 (talk) 06:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I tried to parse what you were saying directly above but was unsuccessful. El_C 06:40, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

It is very easy. When someone ask you "Hey, where are you going?", you would reply "I am going home.", you won't reply "I am going to the home.", would you? The same can be said here. We live on Earth, Earth is our home, we can't permanently live in another place (we can live in outer space temporarily with a space suit, but that doesn't count), so we don't need an article to emphasize our place of residence. In my opinion, it is totally disrespectful for someone to put an article before our unique place of residence. 2001:8003:9008:1301:6898:816A:2928:D089 (talk) 09:19, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, this pertains to what article? Just cite the diffs of the pertinent edits, please. El_C 09:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

The article "the", we don't need to write this article before planet Earth. Please refer to Earth and other Earth-related Wikipedia articles as a reference. 2001:8003:9008:1301:6898:816A:2928:D089 (talk) 09:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm still not following you, but I've noticed a few of your reverts today with the explanations attached in the edit summaries and I accept the correction. Thank you for not reverting en masse. El_C 16:18, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

---