Reply from ColonelHenry
I have been pissed this week, I admit. Why?
 First, last week, I get harassed by one hypocritical "rule nazi" editor taking things too far (SummerPhD) so when I pointed out her similar shortcomings and intransigence and said frankly "this user is an asshole" and explain why and state "this is the kind of user that drives editors away from wikipedia" I get blocked for 24-hours.  I say "asshole" once, I get blocked.  She calls me a "dick" over a dozen times, and gets warned.  Go figure. I hate nitpicking rule nazis because they end up proving themselves to be hypocrites, and unfortunately without fool other meek fools who tend to be admins tend to side with the rule nazi.
 In the midst of that Daniel Case continued to plow ahead insisting on a rushed revision of ALONJ that no one else raised as a concern (so, not immediately dire) after being asked first politely and respectfully several times to "wait until after TFA" and he still ignored it.  If someone politely asked me to wait a few days before doing a drastic edit on an article they worked on that was getting a little attention, I would...because I find it akin to telling a concert pianist to change their entire concert programme an hour before the recital. Only when I responded in anger did he pull back on the reins and realize "hey, maybe I should wait till after TFA."  A little deference on his part would have gone a long way.  I'm not averse to his edits, but seriously, after TFA would have been more than fine.  I considered it insulting, and his refusal to listen to a polite request stated by both myself and the other major contributor to the article was considerably disrespectful.
 And then when the article I've worked on becomes TFA we get inundated with constant vandalism and petty edits that were not necessary (i.e. people like you, Kevjonesin, insisting on 19th instead of nineteenth).  Is that really a necessary place to make a stand and pick a fight? Seriously, don't you have better things to do with your time?  I'd rather argue over an analysis of Hegel's influence on Nietzsche's "Will to Power" or Hindu mysticism in Eliot's Four Quartets than bicker about things as meaningless as whether honour should be spelled -or or -our.

As for why, I like "nineteenth" as opposed to 19th, several style guides (including Chicago/Turabian) advocates it, and growing up I was taught that all numbers under 20 should be spelled out. Whether cutting two dozen letters from an article going to 19th and 20th is going to make a difference for "brevity's sake" on a 40-page article, is a lame claim and frankly a waste of time for both of us. I like the aesthetic of it spelled out, it's allowed, and the option of spelling it out is a bonus in an article to avoid confusion with too many other numbers.  When considering such an unnecessary subjective edit, deference should be made to style set by the editors who spent months on an article...and when nothing is wrong to it, deference is entirely warranted.  That isn't ownership, it's just courtesy and good judgment. After all, if I stood in your yard while you were painting your house gray and proceeded to insist you to paint your house orange, you'd tell me to "kick rocks."

As far as I'm concerned, this is over. Move on. I am not addressing this any further, because nonsense like this keeps me from contributing and convinces me to leave Wikipedia again, and this time for good. If Hell is other people, Wikipedia constantly proves itself to be the eighth and ninth circle.   

Toxicity label: obscene