No, George, the page history shows Sfahey and I were working on it, including one revert that I made on 10 March, then on 11 March you made several edits that removed the facts I'd installed, then on 13 March I edited again, and you reverted it and the actual edit war began.
BTW, the link you posted to what you claim was my first revert went to the last edit on the page. I don't know why and I don't care.
Yes, I compared your actions to a rape, and I explained right along with the comparison why taking that personally would be inane. That you would take it out of context in order to grandstand is telling. Learn the difference between an analogy and an attack.
I was not acting unilaterally, I was imbuing the article with factual truth and including some of the elements of the discussion. I wasn't participating in the discussion initially because I assumed reasonable people would accept the facts. You don't seem to be a reasonable person, preferring to use your revert to try to hold me hostage in the talk page.
Your desire to pretend to be the owner of the page precipitated what followed. Both Dan100 and I have called you on that. I am happy to see that you have taken a step back from the page, but not happy that you spent the time to create this laughable case. You persistently force people into unnecessary discussion of innocuous edits. The fact that you reverted then later included all of my additions, but refused to elide any of yours, is the most telling evidence of all. You just don't understand how Wikipedia works.
And if you don't think that embargoing the truth and twisting the facts and playing politics are less civil than using figurative language to point out someone else's flawed reasoning, then you don't understand yourself.
--Blair