This page will explain a bit of the reasoning behind my guidelines when I edit. Hopefully, we can avoid getting to the point where we conflict, but with any luck, this page will explain why I do what I do.
Content contributed by this user is released under any Creative Commons attribution license.
This doesn't apply to any Commons images - these are released under a Creative Commons Attribution, Sharealike licence. I chose this licence for two reasons - I wish to make useful edits to Wikipedia, but I like to be acknowledged for what I do. So simply, if I've done something useful, then just say that I did it!
Reversion, in my opinion, should only be performed in cases of vandalism. If it is large enough to need a full reversion, what else would it be? Reversion does not serve any purpose but to disclude edits made. If there needs to be change, then discussing is always better. It allows the community to determine consensus, one way or the other.
There is, however, one large reversion which I'm not proud of. The Mark Twain article. I believe it was a grievous error on my part, facilitated by client-side scripts. However, right after that,I reverted myself. I'm taking great amounts of care not to make such mistakes in the furture, and as far as I can tell, I haven't so far.|}
Yes, vandalism. This is probably the single greatest waste of time. Anyone who finds any sort of accomplishment in vandalising Wikipedia should not be allowed to edit it. Period.
This user would like to see everyone using inline citations. Please...
After Vandalism, this is my next greatest hate. If you don't use inline citations as you as statements (which should be referenced as you edit), then who knows where it came from? I reserve the right to challenge, then remove any such information. If I remove it on sight, then you may re-publish, but only with a citation. Usually, I'll only remove information which is likely to be contested. Things like "This company is the largest retailer of product x in Australia".
This user tries to do the right thing. If they make a mistake, please let them know.
Having said all of the above, if I make a mistake in trimming articles to make sure they adhere to the appropriate policies, please letme know. Often, feedback is the only way that I'll realise that I've been making mistakes. So don't flare up at me - almost always, I'll think that I've been doign the right thing. Instead, direct me to the appropriate policy page, so I might review my errors and avoid them in the future.
This user believes that a user's edit count does not necessarily reflect on the value of their contributions to Wikipedia.
Edit quantity does not reflect on a user's contributions. There are vandals with as many edits as I have, although hopefully that has reduced somewhat. This is particularly true in Requests for adminship. People often quote post numbers, without reference to quality. I could easily amass a large number of useless edits. But instead, editing large amounts at one time is preferable to making many, small edits to the same page, or indeed, section.
This is harder and harder - vandalism, as well as personal attacks are as high, or higher than they ever were. But assuming good faith is the only way that a collaborative project can function. By assuming that all members of a community have the projects best interests at heart, the project throives. Of course, in blatant cases of vandalism and attacks, good faith is clearly not present. But I would much rather believe that people are good, and be disappointed every now and again, than to live in suspicion of others.
Personal attacks are complete unneccessary. Comment on the content, not the contributor. If you have a problem with someone, take a break. If they still have a problem with you after you've left them alone, it's now their issue. Just ignore them. And if they start to spam you, then if opens up the way for your legitimate claims of harrassment. Note that while doing all of this, taunting, wikiLawyering, and otherwise hurtful remarks are unhelpful to your cause.
