|
|
|
||
Line 402:
::What condescension? I just casually addressed a random new editor who in my mind made a mistake and with whom I don't remember ever interacting before so I wanted to extend a welcoming expression for a start. Why would you assume that I wanted to be condescending by simply saying dear editor? --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 16:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
:::Incidentally, I am not a new editor, just like I am the creator of the content you were modifying (and not, as you persistently argued, someone who intervened to change the link on "Gyor" -- the link on "Gyor" was there from the beginning). The condescension here is in not conceiving of a way in which you could simply be wrong -- wrong in your reading of that guideline (which in no way suggests we should ''add'' links to redirects, let alone links ''piping'' to redirects, where they don't exist), wrong in your assumption that this type of edits helps readers (which is why I have asked you kindly draw up a scenario in which it ''would'' help a reader), or wrong in your assumptions about my motivations for reverting your edit. The moment I disputed your edit, you simply went into proclaiming that I was being "disruptive" (which has [[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing|a ''very'' specific meaning]]) -- just like you also construed my comment, the one about your edit being frivolous, into a personal attack. Hopefully, once you realize I am not a cretin or a noob or a vandal who is out to revert your infallible edits, we will be over this impasse. [[User:Dahn|Dahn]] ([[User talk:Dahn|talk]]) 17:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
::::First of all, I ''have'' drawn up that scenario immediately after you asked. In return, you apparently ignored that and kept flaming me. (Edited to add: I noticed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dahn&diff=prev&oldid=1230113378] only after writing this, thank you for addressing that finally, though as one might imagine, I don't quite find phrases like {{tq|Is the assumption here that our readers, who have to rely on the "helpful caption", are idiots?}} to be a consensus-building discussion.) And this pattern is obviously continuing.
::::Once again, you didn't merely "dispute" my edit, you undid it without the need to explain why and when prompted, said {{tq|do you seriously imagine "Raab, Hungary" is dissimilar to "Gyor"? im sure you can find other less frivolous pursuits to perform on wikipedia}}. I was not making assumptions about your motivations for reverting, I just asked why, and you responded with such agitated language, it's as if I made some sort of an ad hominem attack.
::::Once again, if my "dear editor" was what prompted this, it was absolutely not meant to, and I apologize for not using more careful language there. Regardless, even if you thought I was provoking you, I still don't see the sense in responding as blatantly passive aggressive as that - if you felt the way I used "dear editor" was not respectful or inconsiderate, why not simply address that, instead of escalating?
| |||