190.161.134.66

  Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Jeana Yeager. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you.

Please refrain from using abusive language in the edit summaries such as in this edit [1] and in particular this edit [2]. In general, the language in your edit summaries has condescending and abusive tones. Referring to other people's edits as "bizarre" and "ridiculous", not to mention calling editors themselves "f*****g idiots" will accomplish nothing positive here on Wikipedia. Please be civil in your future comments. Thank you. --Racerx11 (talk) 01:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Reverting a constructive edit for no good reason is guaranteed to piss the editor off. Did you feel the need to tell User:EncMstr not to do that, or ask him why he reverted my changes? No, you did not. So you think it's fine to gratuitously piss people off. So asking me not to be rude to people is pure hypocrisy. Should User:EncMstr apologise for his unnecessary and rude reverts of my edits, then I'll be glad to refrain from being rude in my edit summaries. Reckon that's likely to happen? I'm not going to hold my breath. 190.161.134.66 (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

My comment was meant as a fair warning, or more like just simple advice, not a threat or anything like that. It's just that I have seen it happen before. Editors who show a consitent pattern of uncivil and foul language eventually wind up getting blocked, regardless of the circumstances that precipitate the abusive remarks. I made my point and you can take it for what its worth. And no, I was not planning on following behind your edits and asking everyone why they pissed you off, if thats what you mean.--Racerx11 (talk) 22:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

What I've seen happen before is that anonymous edits are treated like shit, regardless of what they are actually doing, and that anyone with a username is automatically assumed to be OK. You saw that I made edits that were reverted by someone with a username. Presumably you didn't bother to look into the merits of the edits, you just assumed that the username was right to revert them. And so you attacked me for being angry, not the username for reverting sensible edits. I think you should be able to see that it's unreasonable to expect good faith from me in return for that.

As I recall the edits in question went something like this: You removed the word "aviatix" from the link piped to aviator. User:EncMstr reverted your edit with no explanation. You then reverted User:EncMastr's edit back to your own while calling the editor a "fuc**g idiot". There was nothing wrong with your edits themselves. In fact, I would have made the same edits myself. Why would you assume I thought otherwise? If I thought there was anything wrong with your edits, I would have reverted your edits myself, but I did not. My problem was indeed only with the language used in the edit summary. If the roles were reversed, I would be commenting on User:EncMstr's talk page about name calling and you (the anon) would have never heard a peep from me about reverting a legit edit without an explanation. The problem was solved with the edits. (For the record, I do not condone reverting a sensible edit without an explanation) It was the language used that was the more serious offense in my opinion although it appears we disagree on that. I do however agree with you that anons are treated differently than established usernames, and while you owe me no explanation, your comment begs the question: If you feel this way, why would you not go ahead and create an account for yourself?--Racerx11 (talk) 03:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

So you think being rude in an edit summary is something you need to leave messages about, but reverting productive work without explanation is something you can happily ignore? Seems to me that's a very warped perspective and implicitly condones what you claim not to condone. If you believe that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and if you want it to get better, you should rethink your priorities. Sure, criticise my rude edit summaries if you like, but to simply ignore destructive edits like User:EncMstr's is not helpful to anyone.

If Wikipedia is going to declare itself "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", then anonymous editors should not be discriminated against. In practice, they are, by you and many, many others. The solution to that is not for me or anyone else to create accounts but for those who actively discriminate to stop doing so. At least you've taken the time to have a civil discussion. That courtesy is frequently not given. From another IP address a couple of months ago I wrote an entire article of, I think, very high quality, lengthy, well referenced, comprehensive, etc, etc, and then got blocked after someone reverted something I did with no explanation, and I reverted back. No-one said a word about the article I wrote - all I got in return was a bunch of snotty templates and a block, for trying to reinstate good work. Things like that make me pretty contemptuous of the culture here, and I am very unlikely to start assuming good faith when bad faith is constantly assumed of me, simply because I don't have a username. 190.161.134.66 (talk) 18:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)Reply