Talk:Stanisław Lem's fictitious criticism of nonexistent books

Moved from User_talk:Staszek_Lem
Dear Staszek

I saw your slight snarky comment sugesting I was somehow int he wrong for not providing the "right" edit summary for deleting inappropriate material from an article. Along with your grudging "OK" grudgingly accepting that I'm allowed to edit your favourite article if I explain myself properly.

May I remind you that edit summaries are optional,a nd in this case,s ince you're apparently an experienced editor (reviewer, rollbacker etc.) I'm kind of surprised you'd never heard of WP:WEASEL yourself? Surely you only had to look at the words I removed to see why they were inappropriate?

Maybe next time focus more ont he collaboration and less ont he moral high ground. Amisom (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Could you, please, add some header to your comment, so it will make a section on its own and it won't look like a follow-up to my message about 'Cells scaffolding' above...? Thanks. --CiaPan (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC) This once applied at the , but - once moved to the article's talk page - it does not anymore. --CiaPan (talk) 07:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Your edit summary was "NPOV" . Do you have an idea what does it mean? Before brandishing your human rights, learn the wikipedia rules. And one of them is to provide meaningful edit summaries. Then everybody will like you. Whereas you edit summary "(Reverted 1 edit by Staszek Lem (talk): NPOV" combined with the bloody huge warning box in my talk page showed nothing but noncooperative belligerent attitude. Once you made reasonable, at least meaningful point, I concurred. So take a pill. Surely you only had to look at the words I removed to see why they were inappropriate? They were NOT freaking inappropriate. And dont you throw WP:OWN on me . Yes it is my favorite article. What's your bloody problem? I am not allowed to have favorite articles?  You are sick. I have 9,867 of them on my watchlist. And every minute a smartass pops up who thinks I can read his mind to undesrtand the purpose their edits. So my policy is just like this: no edit summary, no self-evident purpose - revert on the spot. And in 96% of cases of IPs and redlinked users it works like a charm. A great time saver.  Staszek Lem (talk) 01:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * BTW for what it worth, the text is not mine. I just split A Perfect Vacuum started by in two, so your idea of WP:OWN is ridiculous on the double. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC)