text: "We should collaborate more "in the map" (with correct tagging). You, you talk a lot. Me, I talk a lot. We are a poor match."
  
  I agree with that. The talking doesn't really get us anywhere either and things just keep ending in stand offs. Which I wanted the notes to stay open and get a third opinion btw. While it wouldn't be fair if we just went with your's on things as a default it, it wouldn't be fair to go the other way either. So I think a third opinion is necessary on a lot of this stuff.  It's to bad there's so little mappers in California. 
  
  " It was not an automated edit, it was a carefully considered "weather a storm."
  
  I'd hardly call me doing the edits, you going off in the discussion post, sending me the messages, and then reverting me   within like a five minute span "well considered." There was zero time for you to actually think it through and review the edits. Whatever you say. Maybe you well considered it before that, because you had it planned ahead of time. That sound's pretty likely to me. You also gave me zero chance to respond to your changeset comments and you didn't even say which edits were an issue or give me a chance to correct them before reverting me. Which directly went against what Mateusz Konieczny asked you to do and is obligatory if your going to accuse someone of something. You can't just accuse someone of vandalism and then revert them before they have a chance to explain their actions. I wouldn't do that to you, know matter how much we disagree on things. If you noticed, I was respectful enough about your edits to not delete the paths you created. Even though I'm 100% sure they are/were fake because I think you should have to chance to correct your own mistakes and explain yourself. You didn't show me that same respect back. Which is especially hurtful considering you said to edit things in the first place, like you were willing to work with me and I was looking forward to improving the map there. I would have fixed the mistakes.