"change my perception toward your edit. Freaking is so civil language? I don't think so. You ERASED the valid information regarding the criminal's original name. Non-English speakers adapt alphabet spellings from country to country if they translate or transliterate their native language into English. If the kanji are not given on the article, how do readers know which Japanese are ""the criminals"" That's why I made the VALID revert you edit. Besides, what is 'instrumentalized'? I can't understand what you're saying.  

""Freakin'"" is either used instead of ""very"", or when you are upset about something. It is not a bad word. For example: ""I'm so freakin' tired"" (== ""very"") or ""My girlfriend talks too much on the freakin' telephone"" (==upset).
No, I didn't ""erase"" the ""valid"" information regarding the name. I forgot to re-add them after taking out the inappropriate interwikis (see also Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)#Linking to Japanese Wikipedia)
Anyway, so what? You could have just re-added it it yourself. Which would have been polite and saved everyone a lot of time. 
And, reverts are for vandalism etc (see WP:REVERT policy), not for reverting edits just because you don't like it. So, not valid. 
Secondly, I *did* re-add it myself. But you reverted anyway. No excuse because you did not read! So, again, not valid.
""Instrumentalize"" means to (mis)use something. For example, the way newspapers used a war story for propaganda effect. They ""instrumentalize"" horrors of war to show how ""great"" their soldiers are. Do you understand what I mean?
   

Hmm.. This is so wasting my time to hear your unreasonable complaint. So you keep denying to acknowledge your mistake as erasing the info first. If you had been cautious about how people judge what is valid per edit history, you can't accuse me of reverting it without any reason. That is it. You can re-add your wordings without erasing the critical info.   

My ""unreasonable"" complaint? What is my complaint? That you didn't read? That you violated every point in WP:REVERT#Do not twice?
No, I am not denying having made the mistake in the first place. I have already said this three times. 
But you should have fixed it yourself! Improve articles! Don't destroy the work of others. And do not assume that other people are being destructive.
I should not have to be ""cautious about how people judge what is valid per edit history."" 
I should not be assuming that people are poor judges, because that would be bad faith in others.
I should be able to *expect* that people will *think* and *read* and work together to make Wikipedia a good place and a good resource. 
I should not expect bad things. I should not expect editors to revert. Reverts are evil! They destroy goodwill.
If you have goodwill, then you should now fix the article yourself. Or at least say sorry!
   

 NOR Request for arbitration 

Because of your participation in discussions relating to the ""PSTS"" model in the No original research article, I am notifying you that a request for arbitration has been opened here. I invite you to provide a statement encouraging the Arbcom to review this matter, so that we can settle it once and for all.  

NOR plea
Fullstop, please stop snark-baiting Jossi. I've very much appreciated what you had to say in the discussion, but the credibility of your words are diminished with the silliness. I completely understand how frustrating it can be in something like this  and no this isn't my business  but as a relative newcomer to this discussion the snark b/w you & Jossi seems really pointless. I don't mean to cause offense and, again, I've thought you made uncommon good sense with your substantive points. So I'd like it if we could maintain the high ground on those ....   

No, you cause no offense at all. ) Point noted. But I will continue (though with a more judicious choice of words) to point out any attempts to change the subject. Its a symptom of denial, which is in turn a principle cause for the ring-a-roses.    18:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC