-10

My question

Here's one for the Brits I guess

was edited five times, beginning with the title. It is now unrecognizable; a whole different question. Not my question; not anymore. I asked whether "blag" was the British equivalent of "chutzpa," because I remembered reading something to that effect in a magazine. Some ignorant idiot thought it was the same as asking "What is the British equivalent of "chutzpah." The entire text of my question was then re-written by the same idiot. I couldn't roll back everything: too many edits. I got seriously confused. Now the question is a garbled mess.

What is this, some kind of Orwellian universe?

Moreover, I brought up this issue here earlier. Some people commented. I replied. Now more than half the comments and replies are gone. Someone figured that deleting something other people wrote was a good idea.

I left this board once before because of similar issues, but was asked to come back by a good person. I'm leaving again, and I'm not coming back this time. I'm not a masochist. I've dealt with all kinds of editors in my career, but I don't remember it ever being this surreal.

  • 12
    I think both you and ELU will be best served by going our separate ways. Don't hurry back. – FumbleFingers Nov 10 '15 at 21:31
  • 5
    I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it's a rant. – FumbleFingers Nov 10 '15 at 21:32
  • My fault, I thought the title was yours and made what I thought were minimal edits (spelling and formatting and removing the duplicate comments which are not relevant to the question). I thought it was a reasonable question (not a duplicate). But reading the question again without the new title, I'm not really sure what the question is in the end? Are you asking 'Do the english say blag instead of chutzpah?'? Or are you asking something else? It will get more results with a more explicit title and clear questions somewhere. – Mitch Nov 10 '15 at 21:33
  • For complete disclosure (as one can see in the edit history), the title change was made by one individual (and that was all that was changed with a couple tags) and I made spelling changes and a couple minor word changes. – Mitch Nov 10 '15 at 21:44
  • 5
    If this is how worked up you get over having your question tweaked in minor ways, then I have to agree with FF that ELU is not a good fit for you. (Seriously, I looked at the edit history; "unrecognizable" and "entire text rewritten" are grossly unjustifiable overstatements.) – Hellion Nov 10 '15 at 22:00
  • 4
    The heading "Here's one for the Brits" may clarify which answerers the poster thinks the question is suitable for, but it is virtually worthless to anyone scanning the heading in a list and hoping to understand from it what the question is about. If I had edited it, I would have rephrased it as "Is 'blag' in British English equivalent to 'chutzpah'?" But I would not have accepted the original heading in any case, because it is needlessly opaque. People who post questions should be aware that the headlines they choose are crucial to the future usefulness of their questions. – Sven Yargs Nov 10 '15 at 23:02
  • 1
    Oh dear...maybe it would have been more tactful to suggest the edits in the comments. However, the minor edits that Mitch made improved the post overall, maybe the spelling chutzpah vs chutzpa could have been left alone, but all the small improvements helped "lift" the post IMO, especially the formatting of the dialogue in block quotes. Oh dear.... – Mari-Lou A Nov 10 '15 at 23:30
  • 3
    @Mitch - What chutzpah! You should know that you don't tug on Superman's cape, you don't spit into the wind, you don't pull the mask off that old Lone Ranger, and you don't mess around with Ricky's posts in any way, shape or form.... You hi rep troll, you. – anongoodnurse Nov 10 '15 at 23:44
  • @Mari-LouA - Seriously? You're oh-dearing over Ricky? – anongoodnurse Nov 10 '15 at 23:45
  • 3
    @medica obviously he's upset, and he may have "problems" of his own. I'm not excusing him, I just think it's a shame that he's reacted in this way and for no justifiable reason. I think we all tried our best to lend him a hand. He has a bit of a persecutory complex, I think. He wanted to play in the sandbox, and do his own thing. But EL&U isn't that type of sandbox. – Mari-Lou A Nov 10 '15 at 23:48
  • 1
    @medica Ignorant, maybe. An idiot, maybe. But both? Now that stings. – Mitch Nov 11 '15 at 14:52
  • @Mari-LouA - continui a difendere l'indifendibile. – user66974 Nov 11 '15 at 16:38
  • @Mari-LouA - He's offensive (calls editors ignorant idiots, asks a fake question to call those who commented on an earlier question "dumb (expletive) twits", makes preposterous accusations, asks bad questions to show off, etc. And that's only what I've come across casually! Don't cry for him, Argenti-, I mean Mari-Lou. I'm not really all that sympathetic in this case. I do believe in a clean slate after suspension and all that, tho'. – anongoodnurse Nov 15 '15 at 20:52
8

The only major edits to the question have been by your good self, apart from a member of the community removing your rant about the duplicate closure. I attempted to give some advice about that, in a comment.

Instead of ranting, could you actually explain why the linked question is not a duplicate? That is, in terms of "This question asked A, but the duplicate answers B" with as many examples of A and B as possible? You might also see one of the answers which references a British English magazine and implies that a British word for chutzpah is, in fact, chutzpah.

You chose to ignore it.

For the record, the title of the question should be descriptive of the content. It's used in pattern matching.

Tags must be relevant. They're used too.

Comments are ephemeral and may be deleted at any time. Two users' flags or one moderator's vote are sufficient to remove them.

For the record too, although I was "the idiot" who made the title more descriptive, I certainly did not re-write the entire text of your question. It's not the done thing to call people idiots, and it's certainly not good to accuse people of something which is demonstrably false — the edit history is available for all to see.

As I explained in an answer to a previous question, any post may be edited by any member of the community with sufficient rep points. If you are so sensitive about editing, then perhaps the Stack Exchange model is not for you.

What is a little intriguing is that there is an automatic flag against this question because the system has detected your own editing as a rollback war.

  • 1
    @medica I've edited over a 1,000 posts, I can count on one hand the number of times a user was offended or thought my edits had a negative impact. People are generally sensible, especially when they see the post looks cleaner. Besides all they need do is add a different tag, change a word or two and they can reclaim ownership. – Mari-Lou A Nov 11 '15 at 0:08
  • 1
    @Mari-LouA - Wow! You have far more experience than I have in editing posts, so that makes for valuable input. I do agree that the positive responses outweigh the negative ones, though. I've only edited about 500 here, no complaints either. So... maybe you're correct. I guess... as a mod on a couple of other sites, I have to deal with this repeatedly. I have used the exact same words as Andrew often enough that they're almost a mantra by now. – anongoodnurse Nov 11 '15 at 0:13
  • 2
    Well if I can see they are potential trouble makers, I leave well alone. A mod, I guess, doesn't have that luxury. – Mari-Lou A Nov 11 '15 at 0:15
  • Original comment: "If you are (so) sensitive about editing, then perhaps the Stack Exchange model is not for you." should be a pop-up warning before submitting any post on SE. – anongoodnurse Nov 11 '15 at 7:59
  • I've often spent words trying to defend new/juniour users. Not in this case. His attitude is not appropriate for this site, and I really doubt there me a significant change in that respect, but I hope to be wrong. He's shown up also in the Italian site.... – user66974 Nov 11 '15 at 16:48

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .