User talk:Autodidact1

Warning: collaboration is required
I noticed this ANI section (permalink). Several editors have raised concerns regarding some of your edits yet you have made only a single comment there (diff) and I do not see any acknowledgment that the concerns raised even exist. Collaboration is required at Wikipedia and I will block you if there is further editing against the objection of other editors. From now on, if someone raises a concern, you must not repeat your edit (or other similar edits) before gaining consensus supporting your text in a discussion on the article talk page or at an appropriate noticeboard. Johnuniq (talk) 10:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Rambling Man accused me of making errors to an article that I edited without any evidence or without a link to the supposed errors. He reverted my changes because they violated the MOS not because I made any errors. He persisted in accusing me of making errors when I only changed the converted fractions on typographical grounds. He has now assembled a posse of editors who want to ban me entirely. I've made over 5,000 edits and only a handful have been reverted. Almost all of my edits are usage corrections or improvements to prose, such as rewriting sentences to remove clichés. Rambling Man is guilty of character assassination; he's the editor who should be sanctioned. My edits improve articles, not change facts or introduce errors. Autodidact1 (talk) 02:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * While Rambling Man is known for being a little more blunt than is optimal, I didn't see him repeatedly calling you a son of a bitch. You seem bound and determined not to learn anything from this experience, and to steadfastly ignore your own role in it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * He implied that I was in error and he refused to provide any evidence. He reverted my changes and I did not respond. (I don't like the MOS's conversion of fractions because the result is a typographical monstrosity.) He's escalated this dispute to an absurd level and won't let it be. He got his way, so why are you and others threatening me? My "role" has been to object to being accused of errors when I made none; I simply changed fractions but nothing more. I asked him on six occasions to show me any errors I made but he refused. So I called him a liar. What would you have done? What I've learned is that the MOS is oblivious, in the case of fractions at least, to typographical aesthetics. I won't call RM an SOB again since that provokes persecution by his posse of editors but he has to stop his lies. (P.S. I realize that I'm about to trigger you, but please don't use clichés when criticizing me, such as "bound and determined". I routinely delete such clichés when editing articles and rewrite sentences without them. You should have said, "You seem determined not to ... [etc.]". As I said, my edits are of usage, not content.) Autodidact1 (talk) 23:05, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Regardless of that, the point is that several good editors have commented at the ANI discussion in a manner suggesting that a change of approach is required. Johnuniq (talk) 00:23, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * He implied that I was in error and he refused to provide any evidence. Except that, amid the snide comments, he did point out the specific error, both implicitly and explicitly. To recap, you changed a stat from $210 2/3$ (210-and-2/3) innings pitched to $2/3$ (2/3) of an inning pitched, which is kind of a major performance downgrade. --Calton &#124; Talk 11:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * So I won't revert fractions; what else do you require? In the years since I have been editing articles, only a few of my edits have been reverted out of thousands. My record is a good one. I've improved the prose of countless articles and have been thanked for it. This scolding is gratuitous because I don't change content of articles. Autodidact1 (talk) 01:52, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * AD1, not being reverted isn't the measure we're looking for here. That's kind of the absolute minimum. Tons of problematic edits don't get reverted. What people at ANI are saying is that when examined, some of your edits are problematic. Your colleagues are saying they'd like you to recognize there's a problem and try to fix it. Do you think you would be willing to do that? —valereee (talk) 02:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * And while you're at it, maybe stop with the accusations of bad faith and nonsense about "triggering"? Beeblebrox (talk) 06:59, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Well Autodidact1, are you, as has asked, willing to recognize there's a problem and try to fix it?  Also please read and take note of: Communication is required. Paul August &#9742; 12:32, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Looking for catass
Can you communicate 174.214.63.189 (talk) 19:50, 25 November 2022 (UTC)