User talk:I hate whitespace

Whitespace
Not all whitespace is bad. Big blocks of whitespace are unnecessary, and visually harmful, but sometimes an extra blank line can help separate one element of the article from another visually. I suggest that rather than deleting all instances of whitespace withtout differentiation, that you take the time to see what function it may be serving in the article. Remember, we are not robots, we are human editors able to make judgements and decisions based on evidence.

On another topic -- what's the primary name you edit under? This one is clearly a sock. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Take your own advice. I hate whitespace (talk) 06:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

A sockpuppet report has been opened which concerns you
Sockpuppet investigations/Knowledgekid87 Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Then please edit under your main account, and don't mass-change the page layout without discussion. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 07:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixing multiple minor style issues does not require discussion. BMK has a bee in his bonnet. I hate whitespace (talk) 07:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I work quite hard at trying to make articles look good. I clean up layouts, add images, adjust sizes and placements of existing images, take away whitespace when it's distracting, and add a blank line or two here or there where it helps to keep things from running together in the eye.  I actively look at the page (and in a number of different browsers too, when necessary) to make sure that what I'm doing is an improvement, and that the article "reads" well.  (I also do copyediting and regular article editing as well.)  People may disagree with specific incidences of what I do -- that's happened before and I expect it will happen again -- but if the disagreements are civil, well-stated and grounded not in knee-jerk recitations of MoS but in what's visually best for the article, I'm always ready to talk and reach some compromise. On the other hand, you clearly weren't even looking at some of the changes you made, because, while they make have technically followed MoS guidelines, they distinctly worsened the articles -- in one case, deleting a blank line caused the "see also" and "references" section to wrap around to the right of a table.  That's not good editing, and it's not improving articles.  As I said above, we are not robotic editing machines, mechanically making edits that ruthlessly follow preset programming, we are human beings who need to use our unique facilities to make complex decisions when we need to.  Your edits were disruptive, because they were not well-considered, and did not improve the articles -- besides, which, I'm sure you know full well that editing with a sockpuppet is not allowed.  Get over your snit, calm down, and get back to improving articles in collaboration with other editors.  You cannot own articles, and you should not edit as if you have no ability to distinguish bad from good. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

A note to investigating admins
While the specific sockpuppet charge I brought up was knocked down by CheckUser data, there's really no doubt that this account is a sock, and a sleeper sock at that, considering that the account was created on September 18, but didn't edit until November 13. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

So there! --89.211.180.189 (talk) 16:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)