On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 07:41:20 -0500, "david@election.demon.co.uk" david@election.demon.co.uk wrote:
What I said was that *you are a party political activist editing articles on politicians, and frequently in a way which causes conflict with other editors*. That does not imply that you are either right or wrong, only that your style of editing, combined with your known interests and choice of articles, causes conflict.
I think disingenuousness is unbecoming, Guy,
So do I, which is why I was unhappy about your disingenuous characterisation of my statement.
and your meaning was quite plain.
Indeed, which invites the question why you chose to misrepresent it as something else.
Given all you have said about me, you have a strange definition of 'friend'.
Sometimes your friends tell you that you are an idiot. This is usually because you have been an idiot. Choosing to interpret this as enmity tends to mean that you rapidly run out of "critical friends". Politicians tend not to want critical friends, Wikipedians need them.
It really does not matter at all what your interpretation is of the content outcome when you are blocked, the fact that you *were* blocked, several times, for revert warring and other disruptive behaviour, is an indication that your manner of interaction with others needs work, and that you have, as yet, failed to accept that fact.
I am an argumentative, opinionated, grumpy, foul-mouthed middle-aged git who spends half his Wikilife wrestling with trolls and POV-pushers yet I still (miraculously) have an empty block log. I like to think this is because I can accept valid criticism, at least when offered sufficiently bluntly that I get the point. That could, of course, be a piece of truly titanic hubris, but I would not be the best person to judge that. One thing I do *not* do is assert that I am always right.
Guy (JzG)