tguen (2020-09-01 06:29:18+00:00): 
> I am going to reveal a “secret” to you: This takes time and effort.

> You see, all it took you was just a little bit of effort and you also were able to do it on your own. Third, apply your newly acquired knowledge in the real world. Verify your knowledge against reality. Fourth, work diligently.

> Well, maybe because @b-jazz is more experienced than you are? Or, maybe because @b-jazz thinks before he/she acts?

More unnessecary condescention.

> This is not about winning or losing. If you really think this is the case then you truly have a personality problem. 

I don't. I got the impression that you do, because you keep insulting rather than explaining. "You're arrogant and ignorant" is not constructive criticism. You've repeated this several times but still haven't explained why you think so.

> First of all, saying the truth is not being aggressive. Just because somebody tells the truth about you or what you did does not mean he or she is insulting you.

I'm not sure what truth you're referring to. Just because you think what you say is true doesn't mean you're not aggressive and insulting. You are. Even b-jazz said "that tone is uncalled for."

>> you left those exceptions unspecified
> I did not. Again, read.

How condescending. My lack of understanding is due to your failure to communicate. And yes, you did. I read your comments, all you (again, condescendingly) said was I should think about why you mapped this way. Yet again you could have told me, but chose not to. To quote b-jazz, "The claim of it having to do with the “OSM data model” Doesn’t make any sense to me."

> I neither did nor had to infer.

Once again, your argument is, "you're wrong, but I won't tell you why."

>> Not much. I'm not going to waste my time on speculation.
> Alright, then here we have your problem.

No, it's not my responsibility to guess what your motives are. I've asked you several times. You still haven't told me.

> not everything can or should be referenced with a specific link

If you claim I'm doing something wrong, you should provide justification for that belief or keep it to yourself. If you can't find a page on the wiki that supports your claim, you should consider the possibility that *you* are wrong about me being wrong.

> As I have already mentioned, you have already found the necessary information to properly map

You did not say that. Unless you are referring to the address wiki page, in which case I haven't found anywhere that says what I did was wrong. If you have, I once again encourage you to share.

> So, you see, the issue here was your lack of due diligence. 

Again, you don't explain how I displayed a "lack of due diligence".

> please still verify with the situation on the ground and then be truly diligent when executing the change.

I did. I walk through the area often. I saw nothing to indicate my change (the address nodes on the residences rather than the doors) was wrong. If you disagree, you could explain, but yet again, you have refused to do so.

Credit where it's due, you were less insulting, but no less condescending or more informative. I've wasted enough time here. I won't be responding again unless you clearly and explicitly state why you think my edit was wrong. I'll be ignoring any more of this dismissive "think about it" garbage. You seem to think I'm a simpleton, so please be as clear as you can. I genuinely want to understand the reasoning behind your accusations, if there is any.