User talk:Jeh/Archives/2018/11

Following me?

You appear to be following me around Wikipedia as some sort of self-sanctioned police officer with a misplaced air of superiority. I think you really need to take a back seat and trying to halt the evolution of the encyclopedia with your 'views' which in many cases are nothing more than that. Looks like I'll need to use other accounts I've been using to prevent people with your level of sadness from doing what you do best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volatileacid (talk • contribs) 15:47, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

To add, in your most recent revert, your justification is invalid. You can't interchangeably chop and change different types of terms in the same sentence where at one part you state a defined audio reference level, that is, line level, and then you compare it with other undefined 'strengths'. How are you easily supposed to understand where line level sits in relation to speaker, instrument and microphone levels? Why make life hard for the populace and restrain the dissemination of knowledge - christ get a grip. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volatileacid (talk • contribs) 15:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Re the Line level article, I found your wording unencyclopedic and your addition in general unnecessary, so I reverted it. And yes, that's my opinion. A lot of edits are based on editors' opinions about wording, sentence structure, order of presentation, etc. That doesn't make them invalid.

Note that that was in the article lede; it is not necessary for the lede to explain everything completely - it is supposed to be a summary of what's in the article body. I'm not saying the original (which I didn't write, so you are off point when you refer to what "I state") was perfect, but yours added nothing to the reader's understanding. You're free to try again. I'll be free to revert or edit it, too.

"halt the evolution of the encyclopedia", "make life hard for the populace and restrain the dissemination of knowledge" - Haw! I'm completely unimpressed by such hyperbole and posturing. "Get a grip", indeed.

Re "Following" - Upon reverting certain types of mistakes, particularly those that indicate lack of competence (such as not understanding that we don't normally capitalize nouns that are neither proper names nor the first words of sentences, a rule that is not only covered in standard grade-school-level English but is also stated in our WP:MOS), a great many editors will check the "Contributions" of the reverted editor to see what else that person might have done along the same lines. That's part of collaboration here. Reverting such errors is not at all controversial, nor is using an editor's "Contributions" to find them.

Given your threat above, I should point out that there is a rule of "one person - one account", except for specifically allowed purposes such as tests (and in such cases you are supposed to document them as "belonging" to your main account on their user pages). You have just admitted that you edit from multiple accounts and will be using them to obfuscate your edit history. I must tell you that that is forbidden by WP policy (see WP:SOCK) and can result in blocks, even indefinite blocks for repeat offenders - no matter how valid are the edits performed. It is a persistent problem, and some editors have access to special tools to aid in detection of such "sockpuppets". Please don't contribute to the problem.

Oh heck, people have been blocked for persistently "bristling" when their edits are reverted. Such as you've done here. (I must mention that your attitude as expressed here does seem consistent with your username.) Wikipedia is edited collaboratively, and editing here means accepting that your contributions may be freely changed or deleted by other editors. That's life here. Jeh (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)