calcyman wrote: ↑December 11th, 2023, 10:44 am
This would only be harassment if he's specifically targeting you, personally. Trying to filibuster* an argument -- whilst being an underhanded tactic for winning a debate -- still isn't harassment unless it's consistently targeted at you, the person, rather than a particular idea/suggestion of yours.
According to my own direct experience, dvgrn is specifically targeting me and my actions.
dvgrn wrote: ↑November 20th, 2023, 4:10 pm
At the moment, I'm not at all clear that
this recent edit by confocaloid to the tlife page is any kind of improvement. I've reverted that change for now, mostly to register a clear objection. Otherwise I would be somewhat worried that similar "transition" -> "condition" replacements might start happening on other pages.
This is directly targeted at me. There are no actual explanations for why the changes would be bad.
dvgrn says they reverted my edit "mostly to register a clear objection", while at the same time saying it is "a reasonable idea" and "a little more precise". Instead of directly addressing my specific rewording in
OCA:tlife, dvgrn accuses me of planning edits on other pages. Even then, dvgrn does not directly explain why any such edits would be bad.
dvgrn wrote: ↑November 24th, 2023, 1:44 pm
[...]
We can try to keep the discussion focused better on the actual issue in the future, instead of accidentally slipping so much into discussion about the discussion (which I know I'm doing in this post, by the way -- my apologies for that!).
[...]
The quoted post by dvgrn appeared right after one of my attempts to explain myself.
dvgrn's post is offtopic in that thread (discussing general policies, stating expectations of "future cases", etc.)
The post has effect of disrupting discussion flow, and giving appearance that all the actual feedback is simply ignored.
dvgrn wrote: ↑November 28th, 2023, 2:05 pm
There's currently no evidence of current community support for retaining confocaloid's change of 'transition' to 'condition' in those four places. That edit can be safely rolled back for now, and it should not be re-done unless some significant new information comes in from new participants in the discussion.
Here dvgrn ignores the many quotes I posted (where multiple people at different times actually chose to use the word 'condition' in relevant CA-related contexts).
Dvgrn also ignores that out of few people other than dvgrn or me,
- some ( viewtopic.php?p=171889#p171889 ) did not express any specific preference one way or another,
- some expressed their opinions/preferences on general usage but did not directly object to my rewording in OCA:tlife,
- statements "the word 'transition' is commonly used" are not an argument against 'condition', because 'condition' is also commonly used, and because the words have differing meanings.
Just because there's no major support for my edit, does not mean it "has to be reverted" or "can safely be reverted".
The claim "That edit can be safely rolled back for now,..." by dvgrn is targeted at my actions specifically, and dvgrn asserts that it's OK to undo my edit, without giving adequate explanation/evidence for that.