Thread:OzzMan/@comment-23880286-20150823171654

I'm sorry I can't ask you this on the TT wiki, but you know, you banned me there, so I can't. I don't know if you're reading this, but since I know nowhere else to ask you I'll just do it here.

So to the point: I did not edit war. I completely respected your decision, despite not really agreeing with it. The ONLY reason I edited it today is because new information came available, through here. The wiki that's currently linked to won't exist for long. You don't think that's a reason to change it? That's completely fine. I'll leave it the way it is. There's no reason to ban me for that.

Edit warring is only if you repeatedly do the same edit in a SHORT PERIOD of time. Wikipedia's rule of thumb is if you do it three times in a single day. What did I do again? Oh, I did it twice in a single day. That's definitely getting close. But what did I do then? That's right, I tried to solve it in a friendly way, by asking you why you didn't agree with my edit. When you explained your reasons, I respected them, and refrained from doing the edit again. Then a month later, new information came available, causing me to think that this time my edit would be appreciated. So how many edits in how much time is that? That's 3 edits in 2 MONTHS. That is MUCH MUCH longer than Wikipedia's rule of thumb. Even though it's only a rule of thumb, I think it's safe to say, I WASN'T edit warring.

If anyone was edit warring, it was you. You kept rollbacking my edit without giving an explanation. I ALWAYS give an explanation. I ALWAYS try to resolve these things by friendly discussion, instead of repeatedly editing it to my version.

Plus, six months? That's even more ridiculous than just the banning itself already is. Banning one week would already be ridiculous enough. 