User talk:Oldperson/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Dilidor I apologize for appearing aggressive. To be fair, your edit summaries were not helpful nor explanatory and they appeared to me to be arbitrary and capricious,you kept reverting Native American to Indian, and insisting that the Mayflower Compact was THE seed of american Democracy, when I tried to correct (with citations) that it was A seed, not the seed. Your insistence that it was THE seed led me to believe that you were obsessed with the idea that the Brownist faction of Puritans were THE seed or start of democracy in America, and that is not true. I felt that leaving it as such is misleading, and can only wonder why. Also this Pilgrim thing is a modern term, Bradford may have called himself a pilgrim, but at the time they were Brownists and called themselves Saints. You say that your goal is accuracy then the article should accurately reflect what they were considered and what they called themselves, not how we "euphemistically" refer to them today.

As regards my contribution to the Virginia Company. I labored over it before I posted it the first time (days of research). Obviously I do not have the command of proper grammar and syntax that you do. I acknowledge your superiority in that regard. However the information in that edit not only improves the article, but is contributive and, say, a student doing research should have that information available.

I have spent hours correcting grammar, syntax, references and despite that I probably have missed some errors. I would appreciate cleaning up the errors, but not deleting or reverting the complete edit and all of it's paragraphs.

I would be glad to work with you and not against you, fresh start. Believe it or not this situation is creating tension and causing me physical discomfort. It isn't just you. I've noticed that most of the very active editors have a lot of experience in academia, and probably peer review (just guessing) I have none and am unaccustomed to this style of "communicating", meaning short, inexplicable edit summaries. Again I apologize for my behavior and wish to collaborate rather than fight. I will be reposting my edit on the Virginia Company. I've worked it over quite a bit. Please do not revert but communicate. Thanks.Oldperson (talk) 12:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC) =

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election half-way mark

G'day everyone, the voting for the XIX Coordinator Tranche is at the halfway mark. The candidates have answered various questions, and you can check them out to see why they are running and decide whether you support them. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

It is unwise...

...to respond to your edit being contested by following me to another page to revert my edit. Particularly when your action is repeating an edit in the lead of a contentious article. See WP:HOUND. VQuakr (talk) 03:29, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@VQuakr: Excuse me, if you check back over my edits with you, you will notice that I thanked you for your previous edit. I didn't contest it as you claimed, but thanked you as I thought it was a common sense solution. Out of curiosity I did what others routinely do, including Admins. I was simply curious as to your interests. After all that is why WP has links to contributions. The edit I suggested on Assault rifles was not getting even or anything like that, in fact it was polite. I WAS not hounding you, but you are hounding me. I don't appreciate this behavior from a person who apparently has admin privileges it is unbecoming, especially after I thanked you for reverting an edit. Since when is a thank you a contesting an editOldperson (talk) 16:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

This takes the cake. I don't know what to think of a person who can't take a thank you and views it in a negative light. I guess that constant editing on WP results in some programmed expectations of negativity.

Yeah, your passive-aggressive take on this isn't going to be as effective as you hope. Hopefully you'll exercise better judgement in the future. VQuakr (talk) 16:57, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@VQuakr: Passive aggressivity is not my style. I genuinely thanked you for that edit. Apparently you have too long dealt with revert wars and hostility that, like the cop that thinks everyone is a crook, you think everyone is automatically hostile or passive aggressive.

I am always upfront. And you are warning me over one supposed instance. That is an abuse of power.Oldperson (talk) 17:40, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not assuming anything and my feedback is not colored by some third party's actions; I am addressing your behavior. Not one "supposed" instance; one admitted instance. Take it as advice, not a warning - there was a reason I didn't use some canned template. Not sure why you keep mentioning the thank as if it were relevant. Also not sure what power you think I'm abusing. VQuakr (talk) 18:16, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

VQuakr You are abusing your authority as an Admin. Your "feedback" was predicated on the false assumption that my revert was a tit for tat.It wasn't, but you won't accept that,and in fact you assumed the worst. Understandable because of your long experience with edit warring and vindictive editors. As regards "one supposed instance". If your warning, and that is what it was, a threat, it did not come across as advice. As regards addressing my behavior. What behavior is that? I thanked you for reverting an edit of mine, and yes it is relevant as it was a sincere thanks, which you then took as some kind of retributive act when I subsequently reverted an edit of yours, with a thoughtful and sincere explanation. So you apparently assumed I was involved in some kind of tit for tat war.But this raises the issue of WP:HOUND because you mentioned my behavior. my "behavior" if so then what behavior are you talking about. Thanking you for an edit,which you claim is irrelevant, or reverting, in good faith, an edit with a solid and rational explanation, not one of those facetious shorthand edit summaries that are the custom on WP?18:44, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

VQuakrI read a comment recently either on ANI or Teahouse about new editors being driven out. I am not really new, I have been here for a year now (new enough I guess) but I certainly can see,now, why new editors would throw up their hands and leave in disgust. Incidentally I have had some off WP conversations with folk who scoffed at the objectivity and reliability of WP. And from reviewing talk pages, ANI, Arbcom I can see that, facts, logic, reason take second place to consensus, and of course consensus is weighted and controlled by the bias, beliefs and prejudices of interested parties, as a consequence WP winds up being a propaganda vehicle for parties most interested, and of course have mastered the jargon and technique of appearing neutral. Neutrality is a veil easily penetrated.Oldperson (talk) 19:03, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. What behavior are you talking about? This violation of WP:EW and WP:ONUS. Precisely no one, including yourself, will ever believe that was a good-faith revert. Even if you'd suddenly developed an unprecedented interest in the subject, the next step after content is contested is the talk page, not edit warring. VQuakr (talk) 20:39, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

VQuakr So you aren't an admin how about WP:DUCK, as regards WP:EW I am not accusing you, but you are certainly acccusing me, and our situation does not meet the standards of edit warring. As regards WP:ONUS I have no idea what you are talking about. Whether you believe my edit was good faith or not is irrelevant. Unlike you, who reverts with facetious edit summaries, I actually took time to explain my reason. You made a mistake by over reacting. I suggest stop, drop and roll, stop taking yourself so seriously, maybe you have been editing so long that you have tunnel vision and are primed to see edit warring at every revert. Don't be so ready to take offense. Advice from an elder, FWIW.Oldperson (talk) 21:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

edit 918422769

I have amended your indentation on Talk:TERF to what you appear to have intended. If you think this changes the meaning of your comments in any way, please revert that edit, or ask me to self-revert. Lmatt (talk) 16:02, 28 September 2019 (UTC)