| Revision as of 02:08, 5 September 2005 editC12H22O11 (talk | contribs)5,457 editsm rv vandalism← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:43, 26 January 2006 edit undoTJive (talk | contribs)4,555 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| </br><center><big><big><big>'''Busy; if you ask why I haven't done something, that's why.'''</center></big></big></big></br> | </br><center><big><big><big>'''Busy; if you ask why I haven't done something, that's why.'''</center></big></big></big></br> | ||
| <center>I have time for some edits, mostly small ones and copy-edits, but largely my real life preoccupation stands. | |||
| <big>After a month or so long encounter with an editor who used multiple sockpuppets to summarily revert any political or historical-related articles to which I would contribute (in the slightest fashion), I have in the past few months come to the attention of someone known (to myself and others) on ] as "Fenriswolf". Having the privilege of being only the second of two people to my user page, he has taken to changing or outright reverting edits I make to articles, mostly , but also as . '''If you happen to come across some strange-looking, trivial, even childish edit wars I seem engaged in (in which I will typically use the phrase, "rv mass reversions"), it is simply that I am defending my right to edit against this user'''--an aggressive Chinese nationalist, (unsolicitedly admitted) admirer of ] and ], with comparatively unrestricted internet access (compared, of course, to most subjects of his mother country--who typically can not even view this site) and the time and patience for pursuing a vendetta with a person with which they are not intimately acquainted, thousands of miles away. Will I discuss these edits if asked? Yes (when I can make time). Will I preemptively surrender my ability to edit ''without'' detailed justification to one user's filter? No. I will not.</big> | |||
| Take, for instance, this In a dispute over events in which research is less than a decade old, he aggressively asserts that a "massacre" took place and it should be described as such. Funnily enough, saw only "events" rather than a "massacre". Falun Gong is merely a dangerous cult, Chinese repression is "alleged" to have occurred (mostly propaganda from FG types and the subversive '']''), oppression in ] is only a matter of squashing al Qaeda-afilliated terrorists, and so on. | |||
| See the ignored ANI post . | |||
| ] and ] having a friendly discourse on issues of peace and social justice.</big>]] | ] and ] having a friendly discourse on issues of peace and social justice.</big>]] | ||
| ] says ] is going fine.</big>]] | ] says ] is going fine.</big>]] | ||
Revision as of 06:43, 26 January 2006
After a month or so long encounter with an editor who used multiple sockpuppets to summarily revert any political or historical-related articles to which I would contribute (in the slightest fashion), I have in the past few months come to the attention of someone known (to myself and others) on GameFAQs as "Fenriswolf". Having the privilege of being only the second of two people to vandalize my user page, he has taken to changing or outright reverting edits I make to articles, mostly anonymously, but also as "PatCheng". If you happen to come across some strange-looking, trivial, even childish edit wars I seem engaged in (in which I will typically use the phrase, "rv mass reversions"), it is simply that I am defending my right to edit against this user--an aggressive Chinese nationalist, (unsolicitedly admitted) admirer of Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse-Tung, with comparatively unrestricted internet access (compared, of course, to most subjects of his mother country--who typically can not even view this site) and the time and patience for pursuing a vendetta with a person with which they are not intimately acquainted, thousands of miles away. Will I discuss these edits if asked? Yes (when I can make time). Will I preemptively surrender my ability to edit without detailed justification to one user's filter? No. I will not.
Take, for instance, this long war over an article title. In a dispute over events in which research is less than a decade old, he aggressively asserts that a "massacre" took place and it should be described as such. Funnily enough, saw only "events" rather than a "massacre". Falun Gong is merely a dangerous cult, Chinese repression is "alleged" to have occurred (mostly propaganda from FG types and the subversive Epoch Times), oppression in East Turkestan is only a matter of squashing al Qaeda-afilliated terrorists, and so on.
See the ignored ANI post here.
