Content deleted Content added
HistoryofIran (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
HistoryofIran (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
:::::::Who is knowledgeable and who isn't has already become quite clear from our edit conflict - as the sources provided by me have shown, I know what's true about the subject of the article and you don't even know how little you know. As for the rules - you don't get it, as usual. I am not saying the rules disallow your actions, I am saying they are arseholish actions. Yes, you ''have'' the right to undo any unsourced change of content and to demand a citation for anything, and I ''am'' required by the rules to find a citation if I want to keep it. But just because you are ''allowed'' to do something under the rules doesn't mean you always ''should'' do it, morally speaking. Not everything the rules allow is decent behaviour. The law and ethics are not the same thing. Some things are left to your own conscience, and that's precisely where the problem lies in this case. |
:::::::Who is knowledgeable and who isn't has already become quite clear from our edit conflict - as the sources provided by me have shown, I know what's true about the subject of the article and you don't even know how little you know. As for the rules - you don't get it, as usual. I am not saying the rules disallow your actions, I am saying they are arseholish actions. Yes, you ''have'' the right to undo any unsourced change of content and to demand a citation for anything, and I ''am'' required by the rules to find a citation if I want to keep it. But just because you are ''allowed'' to do something under the rules doesn't mean you always ''should'' do it, morally speaking. Not everything the rules allow is decent behaviour. The law and ethics are not the same thing. Some things are left to your own conscience, and that's precisely where the problem lies in this case. |
||
:::::::As for your not missing me - rest assured, I won't stop my very occasional editing because of you, you're neither the first nor the last of your kind that I meet here. You and the likes of you, on the other hand, really should leave this site, since you are noxious to it - just as you will be noxious to any other human activity that you participate in.--[[Special:Contributions/87.126.23.210|87.126.23.210]] ([[User talk:87.126.23.210#top|talk]]) 12:55, 25 October 2019 (UTC) |
:::::::As for your not missing me - rest assured, I won't stop my very occasional editing because of you, you're neither the first nor the last of your kind that I meet here. You and the likes of you, on the other hand, really should leave this site, since you are noxious to it - just as you will be noxious to any other human activity that you participate in.--[[Special:Contributions/87.126.23.210|87.126.23.210]] ([[User talk:87.126.23.210#top|talk]]) 12:55, 25 October 2019 (UTC) |
||
::::::::Cry me a river. --[[User:HistoryofIran|HistoryofIran]] ([[User talk:HistoryofIran|talk]]) 15:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC) |
::::::::Cry me a river. Consider yourself lucky that I haven't reported you for several personal attacks. What a sad, little person you are. --[[User:HistoryofIran|HistoryofIran]] ([[User talk:HistoryofIran|talk]]) 15:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:26, 25 October 2019
Middle Persian
[1] Basically all of what you said is wrong. Read the rules and don't make baseless accusations. If you can't even bother to put a simple citation or two to support the information you've added, tough luck. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:39, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- Rubbish. I've read the rules and what they say is that the burden of proof is on me in case of disagreement. They don't say that I am obliged to add a source, in advance, for every single change I make, and they don't say that you are supposed to disagree with every unsourced edit with no motivation and for no reason at all, which is what you did. Since I probably wouldn't have seen that you had undone my edits, I wouldn't have even known that you 'disagreed', if one can call it that, and I couldn't have added any sources. Thus, the effect of your revert was simply pointless obstruction, damage to the encyclopedia and ruining other people's well-intentioned work, which presumably makes you feel good and important.--87.126.23.210 (talk) 23:49, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- You added some bold claims, which needed to be sourced - you've deffo not read the rules. Also, keep assuming with those sad thoughts of yours as much as you want if it makes it feel you better. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- You see, the problem is that the claims seemed 'bold' to you, meaning that they surprised you, and the reason they surprised you can only have been that you didn't know much about Middle Persian, ergativity or both, which is nothing to be ashamed of per se, but in that case the right thing to do would have been to google 'Middle Persian' and 'ergative' and not to delete everything just because you didn't know it and waste my time. Automatically assuming that everything you didn't know before is wrong is a rather complacent attitude indeed.--87.126.23.210 (talk) 00:04, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- Look, I'm not Googling anything, the reader shouldn't Google because a certain editor was too lazy to add a citation or two. If you don't like your precious time being wasted, then you're better off leaving this site. Good day. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- No, an editor shouldn't be forced to add citations just because a certain other editor is too ignorant about the subject of the article to know that the edit is right and too lazy to even google what he doesn't know. Let alone doing that in advance for every single edit he makes, since he won't even be notified in case of a revert. If you actually gave a s**t about the noble purpose of building an encyclopedia that provides people with maximally accurate and complete knowledge, you wouldn't undo edits about topics you don't understand and are too lazy to learn anything about, but since you don't and prefer to treat your editing as a video game for the purposes of self-aggrandisement, I have no doubt that you will just go on as before, just as you are saying. And yes, you are, unfortunately, absolutely right that numerous individuals of limited competence like you do indeed, by their obstructive and time-wasting behaviour, make this site unwelcoming to more knowledgeable people like me who don't want to lose tons of time playing their stupid games; and in this way, people like you make sure that many potential good edits are not made and sabotage the actual encyclopedic goals of the project they pretend to be assisting.--87.126.23.210 (talk) 01:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- And there's the proof that you haven't read the rules. People who self-proclaim themselves as knowledgeable are usually the exact opposite. You won't be missed. HistoryofIran (talk)
- Who is knowledgeable and who isn't has already become quite clear from our edit conflict - as the sources provided by me have shown, I know what's true about the subject of the article and you don't even know how little you know. As for the rules - you don't get it, as usual. I am not saying the rules disallow your actions, I am saying they are arseholish actions. Yes, you have the right to undo any unsourced change of content and to demand a citation for anything, and I am required by the rules to find a citation if I want to keep it. But just because you are allowed to do something under the rules doesn't mean you always should do it, morally speaking. Not everything the rules allow is decent behaviour. The law and ethics are not the same thing. Some things are left to your own conscience, and that's precisely where the problem lies in this case.
- As for your not missing me - rest assured, I won't stop my very occasional editing because of you, you're neither the first nor the last of your kind that I meet here. You and the likes of you, on the other hand, really should leave this site, since you are noxious to it - just as you will be noxious to any other human activity that you participate in.--87.126.23.210 (talk) 12:55, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- Cry me a river. Consider yourself lucky that I haven't reported you for several personal attacks. What a sad, little person you are. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- And there's the proof that you haven't read the rules. People who self-proclaim themselves as knowledgeable are usually the exact opposite. You won't be missed. HistoryofIran (talk)
- No, an editor shouldn't be forced to add citations just because a certain other editor is too ignorant about the subject of the article to know that the edit is right and too lazy to even google what he doesn't know. Let alone doing that in advance for every single edit he makes, since he won't even be notified in case of a revert. If you actually gave a s**t about the noble purpose of building an encyclopedia that provides people with maximally accurate and complete knowledge, you wouldn't undo edits about topics you don't understand and are too lazy to learn anything about, but since you don't and prefer to treat your editing as a video game for the purposes of self-aggrandisement, I have no doubt that you will just go on as before, just as you are saying. And yes, you are, unfortunately, absolutely right that numerous individuals of limited competence like you do indeed, by their obstructive and time-wasting behaviour, make this site unwelcoming to more knowledgeable people like me who don't want to lose tons of time playing their stupid games; and in this way, people like you make sure that many potential good edits are not made and sabotage the actual encyclopedic goals of the project they pretend to be assisting.--87.126.23.210 (talk) 01:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- Look, I'm not Googling anything, the reader shouldn't Google because a certain editor was too lazy to add a citation or two. If you don't like your precious time being wasted, then you're better off leaving this site. Good day. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- You see, the problem is that the claims seemed 'bold' to you, meaning that they surprised you, and the reason they surprised you can only have been that you didn't know much about Middle Persian, ergativity or both, which is nothing to be ashamed of per se, but in that case the right thing to do would have been to google 'Middle Persian' and 'ergative' and not to delete everything just because you didn't know it and waste my time. Automatically assuming that everything you didn't know before is wrong is a rather complacent attitude indeed.--87.126.23.210 (talk) 00:04, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- You added some bold claims, which needed to be sourced - you've deffo not read the rules. Also, keep assuming with those sad thoughts of yours as much as you want if it makes it feel you better. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)