Edit warring and vandalism
Edit warring is not the same as vandalism. (Both, however, are bad.) The latter requires only a virtual can of spray paint, while the former takes two to tango.
- I am used to wikipedia where editing warring is vandalism. Also under wikipedia guidelines an edit-warring editor needs to be warned by the other editor of edit-warring before being referred to a sysop. I hope you have mentioned to Fr Benjamin that his offensive comments are unwarranted. They are untrue, warlike, and unChristian. I do not promote the Sarum Missal at all. The photos were offered following on from conversations on the talk page of some months ago, and related directly to the missal mentioned in the text. I do not have any axe to grind in this matter. It is Fr Benjamin who obviously has a bee in his bonnet about it and wants to censor photographs which simply tell their own story without being pro or contra the issue. Chrisg 11:10, February 17, 2009 (UTC)
- 1. This is not Wikipedia. Wikipedia rules do not apply here.
- 2. Even on Wikipedia, however, vandalism is distinguished from edit-warring (the same goes for OrthodoxWiki). The former is a deliberate attempt to disrupt the wiki, while the latter consists of a back-and-forth set of reversions (which may well be for the sake of vandalism, but are usually instead over a content dispute). Both are bad. Vandalism is not a synonym on the wiki for bad. It is a particular type of bad.
- 3. I don't pretend to understand what the heck your scuffle with Fr. Benjamin is really all about, but I will note that you removed another photograph when adding your own. Perhaps room can be made for all of them in relevant contexts.
When I added the two photos there were NO photos in that section of the article. Fr Benjamin then removed them completely. I reverted his removal. He then moved one and removed the second and placed his new one there. The log shows that at 12:23 I reverted Fr Benjamin's deletion of the two photos I put up, and at 12:24 re-added the photo Fr Benjamin had put there in place of the two I had put there. I did not remove another photograph when adding my own, unless you are counting that one minute gap between reversion and re-insertion. Fr Benjamin has accussed me of aggressively promoting the Old Sarum Missal. That is complete nonsense. I made no comment for or against that book. I simply added two photos relating to the missal referred to in the article and which helped clarify some of the points considered in the Talk page some months before.
I don't know what Fr Benjamin is scuffling about except I do know he is quite wrong to categorise me as being pro-Old Sarum Missal, and quite wrong to suggest I am aggressively promoting it.
Looking at the log should show the chronological sequence and perhaps help you understand that Fr Benjamin has been the aggressor and has been quite incorrect and improper in his personal attack on me.
Apart from this incident, I have never had any contact with Fr Benjamin whatsoever.
I would prefer to see all three photos there, but Fr Benjamin has persistently prevented that. Chrisg 23:23, February 17, 2009 (UTC)