User talk:216.188.254.46

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Chomsky[edit]

Thanks for your note, even though it was too long for me to read. That's one tip; write what you have to say concisely. Otherwise folks won't read it. Another tip for you: SHOUTING is considered very rude here. Finally, spell check your additions. "Languanges" isn't a word. Best wishes, --John (talk) 22:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I initially gave you my Edit Summary --a total of 29 words or 197 letters-- and it is located on the Chomsky edit-history page[1]. You still have not given your own, contradictory reasoning to justify your deletion of my edits (and this lack of any _substance_ seems to be why your notes are always so short.); do you even have any sort of meaningful, rational rebuttal to the 29 words of reasoning which I initially gave in my Edit Summary, or was that 29-word summary too long & complex for you to process it & rebut it? The reason for my longer description, which I added later (on Talk pages), was that you failed to reply to the more concise & limited reasoning that I gave in my initial 29-word Edit Summary.
Sometimes there's such a thing as being too concise; e.g. I still have no clue what you meant by "not the way we do things" which was the entirety of your reply to me. Speaking of rudeness, sharply saying "not the way we do things" seems a bit rude to me, and is something you said before I'd said one word to you (e.g. Who is "we"...and please note how WP policies support the way _you_ (not "we") prefer to edit, or justify any sort of reasoning for why you've removed the content I added?). Several other editors are already replying to --and debating issues that I brought up in-- my lengthy critique of your editing style, so others seem to have overlooked my lengthiness; my apologies that it was lengthy but there was plenty to criticize. ;-) I wasn't aware that Wikipedia was a contest to make the shortest statement, and in my longer reply to you, e.g. I showed that WP policy webpages do describe the way content is supposed to be added/removed on WP...and note that the webpages such as WP:Core_content_policies go into even lengthier detail than my last reply to you...so perhaps you haven't read pages like Core_content_policies or the process for "consensus" because WP policies were too long for you to bother reading? Taking that into account: maybe that's why your edits don't seem to conform to WP policy?
I also don't see where I'm SHOUTING at you? Seems like you're thrown out some Red Herrings here...rather than sticking to the point i.e. giving justification for why you've removed credible & relevant content from WP, in a way that suggests you're trying to unbalance an article's POV. But sometimes for example, when I'm writing informally (outside of WP article pages), I'll emphasize a whole sentence if it's a synopsis of some much-lengthier details of what I've written. Another example is that I'll put emphasis on a certain word just so that you, as the reader, can see where I've used that word once and then mentally link it to where I've used that word the other time. ;-)
My apologies for hitting the "n" key the second time in "languanges". ;-P I suppose that's why all edits in WP can have that one letter modified rather than deleting the entire addition.
You really can't offer any other rational criticism of my edits to the Chomsky article, besides this one typo? Why then would you delete relevant/well-placed and credible content? POV? (e.g. desiring to keep a whole WP article reading as if it's a one-sided argument?)

216.188.254.46 (talk) 00:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you see the shouting in your edit summary here? I'm sorry you still have no clue. Hang in there, this place takes a while to understand sometimes. --John (talk) 01:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Clueless? As I said, I wasn't trying to rudely or angrily shout at you, I was just emphasizing the connection between those 2 words in that Edit Summary you've pointed out, i.e. see above where I wrote, "I'll put emphasis on a certain word just so that you, as the reader, can see where I've used that word once and then mentally link it to where I've used that word the other time. ;-)" My apologies if you still have no clue that I've already referred to the 2 all-caps words which I placed in that Edit Summary, and already explained that those 2 all-caps words were for other purposes and not meant to be (mis)construed as shouting, so now I'm wondering why you're saying that I'm the clueless one (clueless that you were referring to those 2 all-caps words in my Edit Summary). All-caps does have purposes other than shouting at someone, and if you google for "all caps" + shouting (or even look @ WP's entry for all caps), you'll find opinions are mixed.

Again, do you have any complaints about the actual content I added? 216.188.254.46 (talk) 10:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)