User talk:Ojh2

1R violation
You broke the 1 Revert per 24 hours rule at Price Tag Policy. And, if you examine the 'balance of terror' page you will see that the term is more broadly used than is usually the case. You are obliged to revert your edit if you wish to retain your editing rights and a clean record here, but if you don't either I or someone else will.Nishidani (talk) 21:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not entirely sure how I could have violated a "1 revert per 24 hours" policy, considering I only made 1 revert altogether. That aside, the only situations wherein a 1RR policy is in place is when such a restriction is explicitly placed on a user or page. In the absence of such a restriction, as is the case here,
 * Talk:Price tag policy explicitly notes that the page is under a 1R restriction, and you didn't obviously check. You removed a link that had been there, untroubled, for a long time, and when the WP:CONSENSUS version was restored, you immediately reverted it.Nishidani (talk) 06:51, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

the policy in place is the Three revert rule. "If you examine the 'balance of terror' page you will see that the term is more broadly used than is usually the case". It sure does show that! Now. If the page had that content in the first place, I wouldn't have made the edit I did.
 * You didn't, following the link, take in the implication of usually in the first sentence of the 'Balance of Terror' page. Had you, 'you wouldn't have made' the reflex edit, but looked around. Famiiarity with usage, would have shown that it can be used in an extended metaphorical way.Nishidani (talk) 06:54, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

But surreptitiously editing a page after the fact does not retroactively justify your actions. In fact, it serves to justify my original edit-- prior to your edit, there was not a single character of relevant information on the page.
 * There is nothing 'surreptitious' about improving a page which is shown to be inexact when another editor draws the wrong conclusions from it. As your remarks show, you misunderstood the new page, and I fixed it.Nishidani (talk) 06:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

As such, you are obliged to make a new edit-- not a reversion-- stating that the newly updated page is now relevant, justifying linking to it. But you have no right to invalidate my contributions with heedless revision. And it is a contribution; links provide context and meaning, and you can be just as libelous in links and meta-information as you can in text. Wouldn't you agree, Nishidani? You have even less right to imply-- through insinuation, abuse of power, and after-the-fact editing-- to any observer who doesn't bother to do the digging, that I recklessly made the edit without bothering to read the linked page. Ha ha, silly ojh2, it contradicts you in the very first sentence! Did you not even bother glancing at the linked article? Perhaps your tenure as an editor has left you extremely jaded. From your User and Talk pages I can see that you are frequently involved in very heated and contentious arguments. Perhaps you've forgotten that not every edit is a battle, a war, a personal affront, or a political declaration. While I was searching for your purported 1R rule, I came across all of the following on various Wikipedia policy pages. Perhaps they will serve a reminder of a more civil time in your past experience. Even if you find an article was slightly better before an edit, in an area where opinions could differ, you should not revert that edit, especially if you are the author of the prior text. The reason for this is that authors and others with past involvement in an article have a natural prejudice in favor of the status quo, so your finding that the article was better before might just be a result of that. Also, Wikipedia likes to encourage editing. ... Reverting tends to be hostile, making editing Wikipedia unpleasant. Sometimes this provokes a reciprocal hostility of re-reversion. Sometimes it also leads to editors departing Wikipedia, temporarily or otherwise, especially the less bellicose. This outcome is clearly detrimental to the development of Wikipedia. Thus, fair and considered thought should be applied to all reversions given all the above. If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. Please do not bite the newcomers Be prepared to apologize. In animated discussions, we often say things we later wish we had not. Say so. Recognize your own biases, and keep them in check. Ojh2 (talk) 01:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You self-style yourself as a 'newcomer', having registered under this name in August 2006? I've seen this scenario hundreds of times, and most editors understand it. Nishidani (talk) 07:02, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Look, I was going to respond to your points, but the way you've treated me makes nauseous to even look at the wiki editor screen anymore, so I'll keep it brief. I saw the paranoid insanity you put here before correcting it, and I realize that you're in full on war mode, and there's no point in trying to communicate with you, as you've already authored this story in your mind and cast me as your enemy. But hopefully you'll at least learn a lesson that will have you treat someone else better down the road...

In your angry rush to check how old my account is, did you bother looking at the actual activity? I'll spare you the trouble; my previous response to you was longer than all of my 8 years of other edits combined. And discounting just communicating with people on their talk pages, it's basically twice as long as all the other edits combined. 93% of my past edits were fixing punctuation, grammar, and spelling issues; reverting vandalism; adding links to pages where they should be; and marking dead links. That's it. In nearly a decade I've contributed less than a paragraph of text in actual editing.

You know why? Because the very first day I created my account, some asshole editor on a power trip jumped down my throat for a tiny, insignificant issue. And I wanted nothing to do with a society filled with people like that. You just refreshed that feeling and ensured I'm never going to bother trying to contribute to Wikipedia again. I'm sure WikiProject Editor Retention would be proud of your behavior.

Remember Hanlon's Razor. Behavior that appears malicious to experienced Wikipedians is more likely caused by ignorance of our expectations and rules. Why am I familiar with advanced wiki formatting techniques ? Because I was in charge of KM at my old job and administered an internal wiki for 4 years. Why do I show a close knowledge of wiki procedures? Because I'm intelligent and conscientious, and I actually went and read all of the relevant policy pages before my first response to you.

Why should it even fucking matter how old my account is, or how knowledgeable of formatting and process I am? Try treating everyone with respect. I'm sure you're familiar with the Five Pillars of Islam... what about the Five Pillars of Wikipedia? Editors should treat each other with respect and civility. How can you devote as much of your life to Wikipedia as you do while constantly approaching it as a battle? Doesn't that get exhausting? Would you have treated me with more civility if you didn't mistake me for whichever loathed editor had the gall to go "to a page [you] work to back another editor"? Or would you still have jumped right in hurling verbal rocks? Yet you wonder why we can't achieve peace in the Middle East. Peace unto you. Bye. Ojh2 (talk) 09:22, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry to see you (over)react in this way. I've reviewed the two edits I made, one a revert, the other a neutral courtesy note on your page here and here and detect nothing there to warrant either animosity nor charges of bellicosity, anger and paranoid insanity. I'm very familiar with the last phenomenon, in practice and theory, and I know how to read with a fair degree of literacy what I and others do or say. Let's leave it at that.Nishidani (talk) 09:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)