User talk:A Fellow Editor/sandbox/User conflict

Regarding mySelf, User:ColonelHenry, and the Alcohol laws of New Jersey page

I recently recieved the following on my user talk page (User_talk:Kevjonesin#Century)...

Re: Alcohol laws of New Jersey. If you have a problem with centuries being spelled out (nineteenth and twentieth instead of 19th and 20th) you probably shouldn't have pointed to a policy (WP:CENTURY) that allows either form (in this case spelling it out) only requiring that usage be consistent. Claiming that the official title of a legislative act (TEA-21) that uses 21st (one mention that is not our writings and is something out of our control), is grounds for reverting 6 others in an article that is already "internally consistent" as you put it, that is disingenuous and some would consider it disruptive editing. If you have any further comments, raise it on the talk page. This is not a matter of ownership, it's just that these petty format issues (whether it be dates, centuries spelled or numbered, etc.) are aggravating and unnecessary, and it's audacity to insist upon it when your claims for it are baseless. This contact is a courtesy and will be my one and only time. If you continue to revert, this will become a matter for WP:ANI. --ColonelHenry (talk) 06:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)" —[itallics added for emphasis]

Above and beyond the overall 'pot calling the kettle black' factor, the use of "our" seems possesive/exclusionary —it certainly wasn't meant to include me— both above and in the following quote from the article's page history...

(cur | prev) 05:52, 25 April 2013‎ ColonelHenry (talk | contribs)‎ . . (151,481 bytes) (+33)‎ . . (Undid revision 552076322 by Kevjonesin -- stop playing the reverting game, WP:CENTURY which you cited allows it spelled out. TEA-21st is the actual title of something, not our writings. quite disingenuous.) (undo)

I feel that threatening to file [WP:ANI] for interracting with his, err..., the page is over the top. This...

(cur | prev) 05:42, 25 April 2013‎ Kevjonesin (talk | contribs)‎ . . (151,448 bytes) (-33)‎ . . (Numeral date format. Grounds for change→ Concise & restores article to actual internal consistency. (e.g., Alcohol laws of New Jersey#Open container and public consumption laws "...Equity Act for the 21st Century...")) (undo)

...was only my 2nd attempt to edit the page. My first...

(cur | prev) 01:57, 25 April 2013‎ Kevjonesin (talk | contribs)‎ . . (151,215 bytes) (-33)‎ . . (Contributes brevity to an extensive article. Is WP:CENTURY compliant.) (undo)

...was met with this response...

(cur | prev) 02:20, 25 April 2013‎ ColonelHenry (talk | contribs)‎ . . (151,248 bytes) (+33)‎ . . (Undid revision 552054859 by Kevjonesin - WP:CENTURY says both spelling it out or numbers is o.k. just that it be consistent. it was consistently spelled out throughout the article, no grounds for change. stop it.) (undo)

I offered a specific reason for both of my edit attempts —"Contributes brevity to an extensive article" and "Concise & restores article to actual internal consistency. (e.g., Alcohol laws of New Jersey#Open container and public consumption laws "...Equity Act for the 21st Century...")"— while I feel ColonelHenry's justification for refusing them basically amounted to 'because we(?) wrote it that way'.

I find closing with "stop it", as if I'd preceded with a string of offenses, in response to a single attempt to make a small style edit to be inapropriate and heavy handed . Not to mention that the response failed to address my grounds of "brevity" and failed to grasp that according to WP:CENTURY my edit was just as valid. I chose to cite a Wikipedia guideline, WP:CENTURY, as the user, DavidinNJ, who had previously overturned another editor's attempt to use the more concise format had cited an external standard, Chicago School formatting, as grounds...

(cur | prev) 00:18, 25 April 2013‎ DavidinNJ (talk | contribs)‎ . . (150,633 bytes) (-85)‎ . . (Removed per WP:OVERLINK, and "nineteenth and twentieth century" spelled out per Chicago School formatting) (undo)

I came across two others editors who had also recently attempted to make the same change...

Revision as of 23:20, 24 April 2013 (edit) (undo)

MisfitToys (talk | contribs)

(ce intro)

Revision as of 22:31, 24 April 2013 (edit) (undo)

Redd Foxx 1991 (talk | contribs)

m

Anyway, I'm feeling bullied and am concerned that WP:OWNERSHIP is involved as well a general lack of courtesy.

Apparently I'm not the first to have attracted the ire of User:ColonelHenry...

Perhaps, but it's also something that you don't force down someone's throat roughly 48 hours before TFA. Wait till after the fucking 24th. --ColonelHenry (talk) 03:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not too hard to fix. Daniel Case (talk) 03:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Whether it is or not is inconsequential...it's just smoething i don't want to deal with rushing into TFA. No one else had a problem with it, so that tells me it's not pressing that it "has to be done now." Seriously, David and I both said wait till after TFA, it's pissing me off that you can't fucking accept that and want to rush this when there's no need to rush. Seriously, slow the fuck down.-- (talk) 03:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC) —from - Alcohol_laws_of_New_Jersey#Proposed_new_intro —[itallics added for emphasis]

I'm fairly new to editing, but the above strikes me as inappropriate talk page dialog.

It may be noteworthy that User:ColonelHenry was recently blocked for a previous conduct issue.

- ColonelHenry#Blocked

I look forward to advice and feedback,*

-Kevjonesin-

*(and perhaps a bit of commiseration, my feathers feel a bit ruffled : } )

--Kevjonesin (talk) 07:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Please reply on this page's talk section (User talk:Kevjonesin/sandbox/User conflict) because...

User_talk:ColonelHenry#WP:POINT

User_talk:ColonelHenry#Please_stop

User_talk:ColonelHenry#Blocked

...along with the beligerent cussing at...

- Alcohol_laws_of_New_Jersey#Proposed_new_intro

...which I quoted above leave me concerned that responding to User:ColonelHenry directly on either of our personal talk pages or the Talk:Alcohol laws of New Jersey page may well, if not most likely, subject me to vindictive trolling.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 10:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

[Note: this page briefly had a {{Help me}} template at the top hence the following reply from User:TheOriginalSoni]

• CH is not wrong in this matter. WP:CENTURY says its perfectly acceptable to use either of them consistently, and so he chooses to want one of the formats. By WP:BRD, you were bold - you got reverted; and now its time to discuss, and not revert back. Just because both of you are right does not mean that one of those views should be forced onto the other.
• He may not have been the most polite of all people, but he certainly wasnt wrong. For any editor trying to improve an article, disputes like these are very irritating, and a revert back is not conducive at all.
• I highly disapprove of your bringing up his past behaviour on the matter, as that is bad form. Once again, on his previous behaviour, there was not the best of courtesy but he wasnt wronge per se.
• Please discuss the article on the talk page next time you want to revert back.

Hope this helped.

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I was(ironicaly?) too verbose. My contention is not that CH was 'wrong' about his choice of expressing dates. WP:CENTURY clearly states that both are valid. My issue with the aesthetic choice was that 4 attemtps within about 24 hrs. (2 by me & 2 by others) had been overuled seemingly arbitrarily. I was inspired to make a change in the first place when I noticed one of the previous attempts and found that I as well preferred the short format.

My core issue is with the aggressive tone of CH's responses and an impression that the snappish attitude may be rooted in WP:OWNERSHIP as well as simply being rude (possibly with threatening overtones). I found bringing up issues involving other users relevant because they had happened recently and may serve to establish a current pattern of abuse. They're also the reason that I'm seeking advice here before (or perhaps rather than) attempting to to communicate directly with CH. I would like to avoid having my past and future edits across Wikipedia trolled over a small aesthetic difference. However, I would also like to avoid moving on simply because I was being bullied.

I did initially go to both the ALONJ talk page and to CH's as well but grew concerned when I read the entries I've cited above and chose not to post a direct message. I had posted #WP:OWNERSHIP_reminder to the article talk page previous to my 2nd attempt at making the edit (which I accompanied with both my original, additional reasons for doing so).

I'll confess to being a bit peeved when I had glanced through the article and noticed that CH's reversal had actually, in fact, decreased the internal consistency. The irony seemed worth addressing. Perhaps the talk page would have been a better place to do so rather than the explanation tag of an edit. Being told to "stop it" after a single good faith attempt at editing may have inspired a bit of childish pique as well I suppose. Ah, well, feet of clay.

Regardless, I'm still disturbed by the cussing ranting in the articles talk page and the reports of vengeful trolling brought up on CH's talk page as I felt that he was attempting to apply intimidation to justify/secure his choices even before I came across the other recent issues. I was a geeky nerd as a child in the 1980s and am still a bit sensitive when bullied.

I suppose I was hoping that perhaps an admin could pass on another reminder to CH to play nice (and fair, and courteous)? —and to, please, allow an inexperienced editor some slack (don't pounce on da' newbs!).

 : }

p.s. In retrospect, perhaps I should have presented my account in chronological order. I've likely not made the best case by presenting CH's statement first. Ah, well, I suppose one could read backwards to get a true sense of how events unfolded. ;-)

--Kevjonesin (talk) 13:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

-----

What follows is a collection of, not completely cohesive, notes on the subject at hand. I had thought that I was going to pursue a mass feedback route but now in the light of day after a meal (I was fasting yesterday) I seem to have rediscovered both my balls and my sense of humor and figure it's likely best to simply invite ColonelHenry's direct attention to this page before exploring any further avenues.

-----

I'm interested in both could have's and should now's regarding ways to address issues with an editor who may be showing signs of volatility. I welcome feedback addressing suggestions as to ways one may approach such individuals (directly and within the broader context of Wikipedia's community) as well as thoughts on the general situation and opinions about the originating edit conflict. I've started a talk page, User_talk:Kevjonesin/sandbox/User_conflict, with details to provide background and as a place to recieve input. Thanks in advance for insights and attention.

Superfreak & TheDruId on the IRC, responding to the paragraph above, suggested that I seek input at WP:30. Links at that page led me to some other relevant stuff to follow.

-----

While I 'shouldn't have to' 'tiptoe on eggshells' I'm coming to accept that realisticly I'll likely have to if I'm to achieve constructive convo with an irritable (and possibly irrascible?) editor. ;-) Nah, I'll leave it as is. It's Wikipedia, it can always be polished later. :  }

-----

I just came across the three-revert rule. I suppose I could argue that technically I had made an edit and a single revert; however, that's 'neither-here-nor-there' because as I read it, CH can likely claim slack based on the...

"Considerable leeway is also given to editors reverting to maintain the... quality of a featured article while it appears on the main page"

...clause. While one might argue whether actual quality was affected, the "considerable leeway" bit seems to imply pretty close to carte blanche. And I suppose I should take into account that I began digging under the hood in the first place in an attempt to address a wave of vandalism which likely had put folks on edge. In fact my 1st action was an attempt to revert said vandalism but it was declined as CH beat me to the punch while my greenhorn skills were figuring out how to best go about it. I suppose the fact that I was interacting with the editing interface in the first place in an attempt to defend the page contributed to my feeling chafed when snapped at for a single simple edit. I'm, once again, fairly new to active editing and was unaware of just how seriously some folks take FA/TFA. 'Mother Hen-ing'is apparently not only allowed, I'm starting to suspect that it's to be expected.

This whole page seems, perhaps, a bit over the top itself at this point but I'll note that I had initially went to the article and CH talk pages directly and only shied away from starting a coversation there because of previous entries involving CH which seemed to imply to me at the time that I'd only be leaving myself open to recieve an aggressively contfrontational diatribe. Looking back I guess I have to consider that I wasn't necessarily at my best either and likely was inclined to focus on the tirades and overlook the neutral and even positive entries. Perhaps at another time CH may present himself more civily and I might take a breath and try not to spook so easy. If we both aspire to be a bit calmer and thicker skinned I imagine our chances of producing something constructive will greatly increase.

So, ColonelHenry, my question at this point is why do you (strongly) prefer "nineteenth and twentieth centuries" to "19th and 20th centuries"?

As for me,I prefer the short form because I find it more elegant in that it takes up fewer characters, I like the shape of the ordinated numerals, I'd argue that it's more modern, and, yes, as a bonus it is consistent with the "...Equity Act for the 21st Century..." article title. Also two others have recently proposed the same change.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 17:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Reply from ColonelHenry

I have been pissed this week, I admit. Why?

• First, last week, I get harassed by one hypocritical "rule nazi" editor taking things too far (SummerPhD) so when I pointed out her similar shortcomings and intransigence and said frankly "this user is an asshole" and explain why and state "this is the kind of user that drives editors away from wikipedia" I get blocked for 24-hours. I say "asshole" once, I get blocked. She calls me a "dick" over a dozen times, and gets warned. Go figure. I hate nitpicking rule nazis because they end up proving themselves to be hypocrites, and unfortunately without fail other meek wishy-washy fools who tend to be admins tend to side with the rule nazi for similarly illogical reasons. The politicians who don't see combat always question the generals who do.
• In the midst of that Daniel Case continued to plow ahead insisting on a rushed revision of ALONJ that no one else raised as a concern (so, not immediately dire) after being asked first politely and respectfully several times to "wait until after TFA" and he still ignored it. If someone politely asked me to wait a few days before doing a drastic edit on an article they worked on that was getting a little attention, I would...because I find it akin to telling a concert pianist to change their entire concert programme an hour before the recital. Only when I responded in anger did he pull back on the reins and realize "hey, maybe I should wait till after TFA." A little deference on his part would have gone a long way. I'm not averse to his edits, but seriously, after TFA would have been more than fine. I considered it insulting, and his refusal to listen to a polite request stated by both myself and the other major contributor to the article was considerably disrespectful.
• And then when the article I've worked on becomes TFA we get inundated with constant vandalism and petty edits that were not necessary (i.e. people like you, Kevjonesin, insisting on 19th instead of nineteenth). Is that really a necessary place to make a stand and pick a fight? Seriously, don't you have better things to do with your time? I'd rather argue over an analysis of Hegel's influence on Nietzsche's "Will to Power" or Hindu mysticism in Eliot's Four Quartets than bicker about things as meaningless as whether honour should be spelled -or or -our.

As for why, I like "nineteenth" as opposed to 19th, several style guides (including Chicago/Turabian) advocates it, and growing up I was taught that all numbers under 20 should be spelled out. Whether cutting two dozen letters from an article going to 19th and 20th is going to make a difference for "brevity's sake" on a 40-page article, is a lame claim and frankly a waste of time for both of us. I like the aesthetic of it spelled out, it's allowed, and the option of spelling it out is a bonus to avoid confusion in an article with too many other numbers. When considering such an unnecessary subjective edit, deference by a johnny-come-lately should be made to style set by the editors who spent months on an article...and when nothing is actually wrong (i.e. the option of nineteenth over 19th), deference is entirely warranted. That isn't ownership, it's just courtesy and good judgment. After all, if I stood in your yard while you were painting your house gray and proceeded to insist you to paint your house orange just because I thought it looked better, you'd tell me to "kick rocks."

As far as I'm concerned, this is over. Move on. I am not addressing this matter any further, because nonsense like this keeps me from contributing, needlessly angers me, and convinces me to leave Wikipedia again (and this time it will be for good). If Hell is other people, Wikipedia constantly proves itself to be the eighth and ninth circle. Wikipedia would be a better place if well-meaning people didn't aggravate each other over inconsiderate bullshit. --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

P.S. My mention of "our writing" wasn't meant as exclusionary/possessive...it was to separate our contributions to the article that were consistent throughouth (i.e. being spelled out "nineteenth" and "twentieth") from the title of something someone else wrote, namely Congress using the form "21st" in the title of their act). That one reference shouldn't be considered in weighing "internal consistency" (since we're not going to rename someone else's title when we reference it in the article). --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

---

First of all thanks for making the effort and taking the time to make a civil reply.

"(i.e. people like you, Kevjonesin, insisting on 19th instead of nineteenth). Is that really a necessary place to make a stand and pick a fight? Seriously, don't you have better things to do with your time?"

Quite frankly 'ditto'. I feel that with all the blatant vandalism a minor style edit, clearly allowed by guidelines, would be the least of your worries. I notice that someone else has once again made the same change and you've reverted it again. How's your WP:3RR status at this point? Obviously a fair number of folks have a different opinion than you on this particular point. I fail to see why you feel entitled to ignore attempts over just a few days by four different users to make a minor style change. This seems to point to a sense of entitlement which once again raises my concerns as to WP:OWNERSHIP. Furthermore, I'm not insisting on the change. I made an edit. It was reverted in what I felt was poor faith so I tried it again with an expanded reason attached. My core issue is figuring out why you feel that this justified your jumping on my ass. No, I take that back. My core issue is that I don't appreciate people jumping on my ass and presuming to issue orders. I can understand your feeling stressed but please recall that everone and anyone may be having issues of their own as well. Assume good faith has been expressed as a vital component in the guidelines I've read so far. I suppose that I'm just hitting that border between ideals and reality which one encounters with most any organization at some point. Once again I'm fairly new to active editing and still inclined to believe the hype. Perhaps I should thank you for providing disillusionment sooner than later.

As to AGF in my own case, my ability to do so was greatly affected by seeing that you'd had recent conflicts with others on both talk pages on which I considered posting. It invited me to make inferences about your general disposition. My apologies, I assumed you were just a crank, if not a troll. If not for that I'd have simply engaged more simply and directly via the talk pages. Live and learn.

"...When considering such an unnecessary subjective edit, deference by a johnny-come-lately should be made to style set by the editors who spent months on an article...and when nothing is actually wrong (i.e. the option of nineteenth over 19th), deference is entirely warranted. That isn't ownership, it's just courtesy and good judgment. After all, if I stood in your yard while you were painting your house gray and proceeded to insist you to paint your house orange just because I thought it looked better, you'd tell me to "kick rocks.""

My point is that it isn't your house. As I understand it. It's ours. Otherwise, tell me what the magic number of days is which one must contribute to an article before they too may claim authority over the domain. I guess I sorta' covered this bit with my "disillusionment" thought above though.

I don't really care so much about how the dates are formatted. I do care about how I'm addressed and object to being treated as a peon when the ideals of community, equality, and such have been professed. I feel that you had taken a 'how dare I question you' stance and I'm certainly taking a 'how dare you boss me around' stance. As I see it I'm simply responding to having been bullied. I suspect that I may be a WP:OTTER. And more frankness, if you'd simply refrained from capping your response to my, at the time first and only, attempt to edit the page with a petty "stop it" we'd likely not be having this conversation now.

Furthermore, your assuming the privelege to use the command form with me, "As far as I'm concerned, this is over. Move on.", irks me to all hell. While bullying Daniel Case may have been successful in achieving your aims, you seem to be not picking up on the fact that I don't take well to being ordered around in an, ostensibly, communal environment. This very trait is one which I feel raises WP:OWNERSHIP concerns.

Well, now that I've vented a bit, I'm curious has (is anyone aware of) any proposals that have been made to clearly identify what, who, and when people have superior priveleges on any particular article. Basically to make de jure what is apparently de facto? Some sort of active members list as a tab along with 'article', 'talk', 'edit', and such for example. And/Or another idea would be to have some sort of hatnote at the top of FA/TFA article editing pages informing casual users that such-n-such previously active page editors were enjoying a tempory expansion of authority. I suppose one could just completely freeze/lock-down the page for the duration but that would sacrifice the benefit of expert input on a topic from those who might be attracted by the pages having been elevated (FA/TFA) for notice. Perhaps a sandbox type page for proposed edits with the local 'article-admins'/'article-team' then deciding what to allow through.

I think I might prefer an open explicit heirarchy to a covert one.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 21:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

A few points, and I'm out.

• I fail to see why you feel entitled to ignore attempts over just a few days by four different users to make a minor style change. Easy. it's a minor style change that doesn't need to be made...by the very policy you cited to justify your making it.
• I think I might prefer an open explicit heirarchy to a covert one. -- I would agree, I think anyone editing an FA after the FA process is over should propose it on the talk page...I've invested two solid months of my life into this article, and it irks me when someone thinks they know better on minor style changes that aren't necessary. I like hearing a good argument for why something ought to be changed, for the addition of worthy material, this ain't it.
• "As far as I'm concerned, this is over. Move on.", irks me to all hell. -- Sorry if it does, but I'm not really interested in perpetuating bitterness. I'm moving on, and this will be my last comments on the topic. I have better things to do, and they're more important than arguing "nineteenth" or "19th"...I would hope you do to. As for DanielCase, all he had to do was wait two friggin' days as a courtesy to acknowledge our concerns regarding a unnecessary rushing a revision before TFA, he wouldn't have had to storm off, and I would haven't been pissed by his frequent refusals. He made his own bed. In fact, his stubbornness made me regret asking him for his opinion. If you continue to pester me about this, we'll both end up getting blocked, and that denies the project from our more worthy contributions and talents.

if you're upset because I said stop it...take a number, since I probably said it 10 times yesterday and didn't think twice about it. learn to let go. moment of zen.

So, please respect that I'm done with this. I will oppose any change from nineteenth to 19th on principal because it's a waste of time. If I can offer one bit of advice: find a better fight to get into...one that is actually worth something and where the stakes aren't so low...otherwise, just focus on contributing something worthwhile and try to avoid obstructing others from doing so as well. Getting into an argument about saving 6 characters, is completely unnecessary and keeps me from focusing on more important work.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Surreply from Daniel Case

I realize that some time has gone by since these comments were made. I don't want to keep this going; merely to put my interpretation of my actions as described above in the second bullet in the record, lest anyone passing by or at some point in the future where this would be relevant assume that I accept ColonelHenry's as it stands.

• About three weeks ago, ColonelHenry invited me to share my thoughts on the article at the FAC. Since I don't like to do that sort of thing without considerable review of the nominated article, I printed it out and took my time going through it with a red pen (made more difficult by having to print it out in smaller type from Internet Explorer, as it kept crashing in Firefox when I tried to do that (something I hope a subsequent update has fixed). By the time I had done so, the FAC had been closed and the article had been promoted.

• I still saw that work could be done on it, and I mentioned to Henry that I saw the need for a copyedit. He said he was OK with it if DavidinNJ agreed with it. I thought that was a little strange—in a collaboratively edited encyclopedia, users shouldn't have to seek other users' permission—but since they had just gotten it to FA, I understood and courteously waited for David to say yes, which Henry told me he had.

• I did the copyedit and posted my at-length critique, the one I would have given had the FAC still been open, on the talk page. Both David and Henry patiently responded to every issue I raised, every question I had. We made changes to the article where necessary with consensus from all three of us.

• It was when I suggested expanding the intro to reflect the expanded article, and rewriting it a bit to give a better summary of the article, that things went nuts. This is the first time I remember another Wikipedian not wanting this done if it had been proposed. I didn't understand why Henry was so worried—with three days left before the article went on the main page, there was certainly time to come to a consensus on a revised intro. I still don't.

  Henry, who was incensed at even the idea, even after I deferred to his concerns by putting a proposed revised intro on the talk page first for review, likens this above to "a concert pianist to change their entire concert programme an hour before the recital." With all due respect, I completely disagree with that analogy. To me it's more like asking the pianist to change the selection of pieces, and perhaps rerecord or remix one or two, on an album shortly before its ship date. The hard work he and David had already done.

  So, he says, he asked politely.

  I have had more vandals than I care to count use language like that towards me, not only on site but in emails, too. Never have I been sworn at by a fellow editor of such long standing over something that any editor should expect and welcome, especially when they were the one who invited me to participate in the first place. As it says right over my edit window and (I'm sure) his, "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions." His request for me not to make those changes, which as I indicated I believed to be in keeping with WP:LEAD, was, however phrased, indefensible in the context of longstanding policy and practice.

• So, with things going the way they were, I saw where they were going and decided it was not in the long-term interest of Wikipedia to continue engaging in that discussion, especially if it was going to be discussed that way. I just backed away, not because I was persuaded but because I don't log on and edit every day to do that sort of thing. I had other things that needed doing, and I decided to do them instead. More people should just try walking away from things like this ... maybe then AN/I wouldn't be a trillion pages long.

• I should note that through this all David remained polite and courteous and continued to work with me on some possible better images for the article.

• That said, I really say all this more in sorrow than in anger. A long time ago, ColonelHenry had asked me if we could get together and tour the northern, lower reaches of the Wallkill River (which runs nearby our respective homes) in preparation for expanding that article to some sort of recognition status. Believe it or not, I'm still open to doing that. I find that differences like these don't survive face-to-face encounters too well. Daniel Case (talk) 23:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

(←)

Hi Daniel Case, Thanks for expounding. I just looked at your user page and I see that you are much more experienced with our Wikipedia editing community/culture than I. I'd welcome your feedback on some thoughts/reflections my recent experiences/observations have inspired.

• #Looking Back

• #egalitarian process vs. editorial content

• #Reflection II

WP:NOTBATTLE has also come to my mind and contributed to my going ahead and clearing related stuff from my main talk page to a subpage, User_conflict/archive. However, I'm still left feeling that there may be lessons to learn from the experience. Room for community to reflect upon itself —names redacted— and give thought to how we wanna' be.

I personally would have appreciated it (and have been better prepared) if Wikipedia's warm fuzzy ideals had been tempered with more up front de facto reality. A 'Be Bold! ...but be warned...' sort of approach. Perhaps they were and I simply looked past the cautionary bits. I'm a hands on learner at times and kinda' jumped right in to deeper waters.

I've found the politics & sausage making metaphor (anecdote) crossing my mind lately. :  }

--Kevjonesin (talk) 01:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

p.s. –After clicking the save button I found myself staring at the 'WP:NOTBATTLE' wikilink in my text above. Something was irking me. Thoughts began to swirl a bit. Like dry leaves near the crook of a wall. About guidelines and cheats and...

• #[ColonelHenry's] Wikipedia philosophy

...of "combat" and "Fight!"

WTF?!!! --Kevjonesin (talk) 02:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Would the broader community really consider this stance acceptable and best overlooked? --Kevjonesin (talk) 02:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, perhaps...

• Wikipedia:Light one candle
• Wikipedia:No angry mastodons
• Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man

Pragmatic Wiki-whacky wacky-Wikiness. :  }

But of course there's always WP:IAR to meditate on as well. ;  )

--Kevjonesin (talk) 03:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

BWA-HA-HA HA-HA...

I found the script!

#How egotistical power users react.

:  }

--Kevjonesin (talk) 03:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I LOL'd 'til my eyes watered when I found the link above. It's nearly a line by line account. --Kevjonesin (talk) 10:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)