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