Board Thread:Wiki discussions and announcements/@comment-4698489-20150808195101/@comment-1330314-20150814163145

Phoenix169 wrote: Your only real argument here is that finding FlipText a bother is a matter of personal preference. Which I agree that it is. However, the only person here who has in fact expressed the belief that FlipText is not a bother is you yourself.

Hold on there. I agree that FlipText is not as intuitive as it should be, which is why I'm proposing to update it in order for it to work better. However, what you're saying is that FlipText has a negative effect on page format, which is demonstrably false, if only because you agree to its use on "non-essential" information and have given no complaints to its other applications mentioned above. If we need to cut down on the use of FlipText because it's not an appropriate thing to have in some cases, then that's something I'd agree with, but your intention seems to be cutting it down simply so that you don't have to deal with it at all when viewing your preferred type of information. In the end, that kind of move solves nothing, and at worst simply entrenches the real problem even deeper.

Phoenix169 wrote: I'm saying that the changes you made in adding FlipText everywhere were clearly illegitimate.

Illegitimate by whose standards? If you're using the documentation as said standard, then I simply went against the wishes of one single other user, on the same level of authority as me, who also made errors in the documentation from the very start. If you're using the wiki as a standard, then I simply applied standards that already existed and arose from collaborate work, which makes my work very legitimate.

Phoenix169 wrote: You continue to stress the need for discussion, consensus, and standardization, but you ignored all of these issues when you decided not to engage the community in discussion nor update the written documentation. You went ahead to make edits according to your own personal preferences and standards and with only yourself to maintain them. This is not how a wiki works.

You're right that I should have engaged a discussion on this sooner, but my actions were congruent with standards that already existed on the wiki, and not my personal preferences. You, however, have attempted, and are still attempting now, to bypass a conversation you pretended to establish simply because your own preferences didn't correspond to those standards, without consensus or authorization. It is also quite rich of you to attack my wiki credentials when my participation on this wiki alone is a very large multiple of yours. You have demonstrated no intention of working as part of any kind collaborative project so far, and your biggest claim to fame here is a small lobbying campaign you haven't bothered to cover as an open discussion.