[002]
TrevMUN
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Since you're still replying, I'll just point out what I think is an example of you acting in bad faith:
to:
Since you\'re still replying, I\'ll just point out what I think is an example of you acting in bad faith:
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
''
to:
\'\'\"I took no action because we act upon consensus. It\'s considered bad faith to act unilaterally when a subject is being disagreed upon.\"\'\'
To me, it seems that you\'re selectively applying this principle. Between myself, Tropers/KingZeal, Tropers/{{Dere}}, and Tropers/{{Larkmarn}}, there was a \'\'consensus\'\' that this article had an extremely negative slant, not to mention it was factually wrong. Whether they had already acted by the time I made my edits, I don\'t know, as I\'ve not searched the history back that far. Regardless, this trope had a bad case of \"physically plausible trope being treated as physically impossible--even in spite of counterexamples.\"
HighSpeedMissileDodge had a problem of this sort many, many years ago. Someone used the article to preach that it\'s impossible for a real human pilot to dodge a homing missile and that the only thing which has a chance of doing so is unmanned vehicles with AI. That betrayed \'\'complete\'\' ignorance of air combat: learning how to dodge missiles is a very important skill taught to pilots, even bomber crews. Is every pilot capable of effortlessly dodging a missile? No, and just because you know \'\'how\'\' to do it doesn\'t mean you can pull it off every time. Circumstances can make or break the attempt. Yet it \'\'does\'\' happen, and in fact some pilots pulled off some quite amazing feats. That alone makes the claims of impossibility pure bunk.
Anyway, back to my point:
\'\'\"I fully intended to remove both examples from the start, so your accusations are unfounded.\"\'\'
One is left to wonder why you did not do so when you stepped in, rather than only removing statements that counteract the negativity from the introduction. I\'m afraid I can\'t agree with you that my \'\'suspicions\'\' concerning your behavior are unfounded.
So let\'s consider: you stepped in and, lack for a better phrase, \"pushed back\" against four other editors who have noted a major negativity problem with this article, by removing most of the positive rewrite and leaving negative examples in place (which you only declared intent to remove \'\'after\'\' receiving objections to what you did). By your own metric, you\'ve been acting against consensus, and when one of those editors disagreed with your actions and then proceeded to make a \'\'\'different\'\'\' change to the article that doesn\'t even involve the introductory section, you immediately tried to get him suspended by reporting him to the mods.
It strongly feels as if you were trying to get rid of an obstacle to altering the article how \'\'you\'\' wanted it, rather than trying to work with an editor who disagrees with you. Or, for that matter, trying to build consensus on what to do (as you say should be done) when there is already a group of editors whose collective opinion differs from yours.
I\'m glad that you have recognized you were mistaken in assuming I added Cashoo\'s post from the start, but I think you should reexamine your actions more closely here.
To me, it seems that you\'re selectively applying this principle. Between myself, Tropers/KingZeal, Tropers/{{Dere}}, and Tropers/{{Larkmarn}}, there was a \'\'consensus\'\' that this article had an extremely negative slant, not to mention it was factually wrong. Whether they had already acted by the time I made my edits, I don\'t know, as I\'ve not searched the history back that far. Regardless, this trope had a bad case of \"physically plausible trope being treated as physically impossible--even in spite of counterexamples.\"
HighSpeedMissileDodge had a problem of this sort many, many years ago. Someone used the article to preach that it\'s impossible for a real human pilot to dodge a homing missile and that the only thing which has a chance of doing so is unmanned vehicles with AI. That betrayed \'\'complete\'\' ignorance of air combat: learning how to dodge missiles is a very important skill taught to pilots, even bomber crews. Is every pilot capable of effortlessly dodging a missile? No, and just because you know \'\'how\'\' to do it doesn\'t mean you can pull it off every time. Circumstances can make or break the attempt. Yet it \'\'does\'\' happen, and in fact some pilots pulled off some quite amazing feats. That alone makes the claims of impossibility pure bunk.
Anyway, back to my point:
\'\'\"I fully intended to remove both examples from the start, so your accusations are unfounded.\"\'\'
One is left to wonder why you did not do so when you stepped in, rather than only removing statements that counteract the negativity from the introduction. I\'m afraid I can\'t agree with you that my \'\'suspicions\'\' concerning your behavior are unfounded.
So let\'s consider: you stepped in and, lack for a better phrase, \"pushed back\" against four other editors who have noted a major negativity problem with this article, by removing most of the positive rewrite and leaving negative examples in place (which you only declared intent to remove \'\'after\'\' receiving objections to what you did). By your own metric, you\'ve been acting against consensus, and when one of those editors disagreed with your actions and then proceeded to make a \'\'\'different\'\'\' change to the article that doesn\'t even involve the introductory section, you immediately tried to get him suspended by reporting him to the mods.
It strongly feels as if you were trying to get rid of an obstacle to altering the article how \'\'you\'\' wanted it, rather than trying to work with an editor who disagrees with you. Or, for that matter, trying to build consensus on what to do (as you say should be done) when there is already a group of editors whose collective opinion differs from yours.
I\'m glad that you have recognized you were mistaken in assuming I added Cashoo\'s post from the start, but I think you should reexamine your actions more closely here.
