|
:As for the rest: no, "edit warring, assumptions of bad faith, and refusal to work constructively w/ others" are not "allowed at certain circumstances". No, you cannot "make those accusations". And so on and so forth. You seem to be laboring under the impression that you can ignore behavioral policies merely because you happen to be correct on some matter of fact. That is not the case; if you cannot interact appropriately with other editors, it matters not one bit how good your facts are. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill]] 01:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
:I don't think that what you say is really true. You still avoid attempting to defend your accusation against all of my rationale & just justify it at the surface level. That's not enough, and I don't see that as being fair.
:Wikipedia's consensus building policy states that when a disagreeable change is made, anyone can revert and discuss about the proposed changes; after consensus is established the changes or compromises are introduced. That applies to your first set of links (i.e. "Korean terrorist" articles).
:"edit warring, assumptions of bad faith, and refusal to work constructively w/ others" can be justified at certain times -that's my point. When others are trying to edit war & push their way in, you can edit war on the sole reason that they've violated Wikipedia's consensus building policy. You can assume bad faith when something obviously wrong are happening - such as new accounts popping up (--> sock puppetry?) When the other side refuses to talk to you, or if the other side ignores all of my contentions that they see as disadvantageous for them, or makes these "concessions" that don't matter at the end of the day with their doubly more ridiculous "compromises", I don't have to "work constructively with others" - if by this LactoseTI means "yes, yes, you're right, our king".
:My edits and my existence in Wikipedia are reciprocal, I reserve right for them to be reciprocal. Unless you examine other editors more and all closely you can only get a biased view.
:When somebody says George Washington was a colonial rebel, & already made edits to the main space & will make ridiculous compromises on talk page but will never agree to what you say, what will you do. Tell me how you can "cooperate constructively". But see that happening on almost every other disputes with the same old guys. And these same old guys start the disputes, they make the edits to begin the disputes. I almost never have in the last 2 years, and in the last year I'm confident I've never done so.
:You may not realize but common-sensed people like me have kept the East Asia-related sector of the Wikipedia articles from going really messed up. You must respect my very presence & my willingness to participate in disputes. I deal with all the dirt here -it's all concentrated on me, but that's the evidence you get of how messed up this place is. Maybe I should have been more like the other admins (want me to name some?) & be more ambiguous in disputes while readily going on with edits where easy compromises can be made.
:''No, you cannot "make those accusations". And so on and so forth. You seem to be laboring under the impression that you can ignore behavioral policies merely because you happen to be correct on some matter of fact.'' Then what do you have? Is it simply incivility or misunderstanding of Wikipedia's policies or really pushing my nationalist wants by making Wikipedia a battle field? If it's incivility, it doesn't entail a block. If it's misunderstanding of Wikipedia's policies then you should remind me (but I'm sure I got it down all correct). If it's my POV battling, then that may justify your proposal but this doesn't seem like it. ([[User:Wikimachine|Wikimachine]] 03:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC))
| 