Part pilot. All geek. Aviator, foodie, wino, computer guy. Not necessarily in that order.
2012-03-24 21:42:57 Much as you seem to have a preference for some anonymity, so do they. Please respect it. —pilotgeek
2012-03-24 21:51:23 You'll note that I have been respecting it, since I did not revert your change. I was simply confirming that you were not trying to protect people who had not asked to be protected. Try checking your attitude next time. —CovertProfessor
2012-03-24 21:57:14 The question was shared by others... with no reason given, we don't know if are you removing those emails they added because they wish it, or because you are a competitor, or because you don't like the at symbol. With no answer, I still don't know what to think about the edit. You may well have a great reason. Could you please share it? —Evan 'JabberWokky' Edwards
2012-03-24 22:35:50 @cp That is always an issue with the electronic medium. I intended clarify, you read attitude (none intended). —pilotgeek
2012-03-24 22:46:16 @evan What question? Who others? Society of Wiki Editors? :) Seriously, I was asked to remove the addresses by the manager, as they prefer not to have their personal emails on a web page. —pilotgeek
2012-03-24 23:27:04 Well, at least two people, cp and myself. That's a "we". I was just pointing out that s/he wasn't alone in wondering. This seems somehow awfully formal and antagonistic for a simple query about an edit. You removed stuff... people asked why. It's not exactly an interrogation or asking you to defend your existence. Just wondering why you deleted some stuff. That's all. People ask me the same thing. Heck, I'm pretty sure I've asked cp in the past why something was deleted. —JabberWokky
2012-03-25 10:14:51 I didn't read in any attitude. When you reminded me of my own anonymity, you were reminding me to be consistent, as though I might not be. When you said, "Please respect it," you implied that I might not respect their anonymity, so you had to request that I do so — even though I had not undone your edits and had specifically asked you if they had requested privacy. In other words, you assumed bad behavior on my part even though all evidence suggested good behavior. That's insulting. As JW notes, people remove information from the wiki all the time (something that is normally frowned upon), and not all of their reasons are good ones. For example, within the last month someone changed the phone number of a Chinese restaurant to the number of a different Chinese restaurant in town. So, we (meaning, we who care about the wiki remaining a useful resource) have to ask when information is changed or removed.
Look, I get it. The Ramble Apartments opened up with a lot of fanfare, but based on the longwinded yet articulate comments on the page, it hasn't lived up to the hype. I can certainly understand why, under those circumstances, people would not want their email addresses on the page. Now, I'm sure you'll tell me that that isn't the reason, but that is how it appears from the outside. They might want to consider that. —CovertProfessor
2012-03-30 13:41:07 @cp OK.. I read this and gave myself some time to not be annoyed. Seriously.. there was no attitude in my original comment. I wrote that below and meant it. I do care about the wiki as a useful resource, as I use it all the time and contribute occasionally. There is nothing sinister going on in my removing the addresses, just contact preferences.
Since you mentioned the "information" on the Ramble page, I will say that the editorial at the top of all pages should be mostly factual, as opposed to opinion. And at the ramble that is simply not the case, but I am refraining from editing that, as it will ultimately take care of itself (as the facility gets out of its infancy). I have seen numerous times where tilted opinions are removed from the "informative" section, both by you.. and frankly by me as well. Of course, comments are comments — opinions — and they belong in that location on the page. I would never suggest one's freedom of speech should revoked. —pilotgeek
"I will say that the editorial at the top of all pages should be mostly factual, as opposed to opinion." You have not been paying attention. The "informative"/comment section distinction you perceive is an unfortunate artifact of people being more willing to use the comment box than the edit button. There are pages loaded with opinion that don't have a comment bar—that was the default state of pages on this wiki for a long time in fact. —WilliamLewis