User:Sykoskit/sandbox/rootkit talk

So essentially you completely reverted my entire edit because of a preference that you have that is not enforced anywhere else on the list even though you are unwilling to take the time and effort to do so? Am I reading that correctly or am I misunderstanding something?

Sorry… but I get my hackles up when someone reverts one of my edits, mostly because EVERYONE is so quick to just completely revert something someone did, rather than taking the time to do what they are SUPPOSED to do… as per Help:Reverting. I mean if someone is going to take the (what I’ve come to understand should be an extraordinary) measure of fully destroying all of the efforts of another editor, they should be required to follow a few fundamental guidelines to do so. (Except in any obvious cases of vandalism).

It’s especially frustrating in cases like this because the entire first bullet of WP:BADREVERT… which tells us not to revert an edit unless it actually makes the article worse, is completely ignored. Along with the first part of the second bullet which seems to say, “Don’t completely revert a useful edit in cases where opinions may differ, just because you don’t fully agree with it.

Most importantly, and this is the main part of all of this that truly vexes me, I can’t for the life of me understand why NOBODY does ANY single part of WP:PARTR, before reverting.

For instance, if I were in a similar position where someone made nearly the same edit that I made in this case, and I fundamentally disagreed with it to the point that I actually believed that it made the article much worse and I just couldn’t allow it to stay the way it was, I wouldn’t revert the edit entirely. I mean the issue here wasn’t the addition of the name of the nebula to the list, but the fact that the wl was just a piped link to the NGC article already linked in the same row, correct?

Now that you’ve explained it to me, I completely respect that reasoning. Even though most, if not all, nebulae that are linked to articles with WP:COMMONNAMEs are also linked to the NGC redirect of the same article, I DO see some nebulae that have names that aren’t, and the few that I checked are indeed to articles that don’t have common names, just an NGC listing. Other than the Bow-Tie Nebula, Ghost of Jupiter, Blinking Planetary, Footprint Nebula, Butterfly Nebula, Skull Nebula, Blue Flash Nebula, and the 13 others that have names linked to articles without common names, I do understand and appreciate the effort to contain the few cats you actually have herded, and not let them run amok, thus losing total control, as well as the lack of motivation to find and undo all of those edits.

What would I do instead, if I were in that position, you might ask? I would follow the advice offered in the second paragraph of WP:PARTR, which I have yet to see EVER done by anyone.

I want to be clear

To be fair,

this has obviously been a systemic problem that shouldn’t be all dumped on you, unfortunately you just happen to be the person who is responsible for the revert that pushed me just a bit to to finally speak my mind… and I’m sorry for that.

something that is not your fault, even if you might perpetuate it…

Not only in lieu of any reverts that have been done to any of my edits, but when studying the history of quite a few different articles with hundreds or even thousands of edits, I’ve yet to find ANYONE who has done this.

That’s obviously not to say nobody actually ever has. Needless to say, I couldn’t go through every page of every article’s history in my entire lifetime… but from my experience, it just seems like nobody even cares to try to WP:ENCOURAGE, or making sure they don’t WP:BITE.

Anyway… I realize this is a lot of words just to say “I wish you would’ve actuallyfixed my edit and simply removed the wl that you objected to, rather than just reverting my edit and erasing the name entirely… because there was nothing wrong with me adding the name to the table… it’s not like it’s just some “latest fancy name that someone thought up on a whim.” The name that I added is actually in the NGC article… just like all the rest.

Sykoskit (talk) 19:44, 17 October 2022 (UTC)