On May 17, 2006, at 6:33 PM, Earthhope Action Network wrote: I've been here for two years. So have many of the people on this list. I think we know Wikipedia policy better than you. -- Philip L. Welch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch

G'day Margie, Your contributions don't lie. I posted diffs in the message to which you're replying; the diffs show what *you* did, what *you* said. They aren't a case of Swatjester's word against yours; they're a case of an accurate computer record that proves that the accusations against you are true. Nonsense. Nobody is blocked for holding opinions; it is only when those opinions lead to inappropriate behaviour that they become a problem. You weren't blocked for your political views; you were blocked for deliberately editing in an inappropriate manner to push those views. Likewise, Corbin would not be blocked merely for saying "I support Margie", but if he were to behave as you did (an unlikely prospect) he would most assuredly be blocked, and quickly. <snip/> I don't think it *is* appropriate to refer to children (even vandals) as "turds". Next time I see Geogre I shall bring the subject up with him. I don't think it excuses your behaviour, either, so don't try to change the subject. Language, m'dear, language. The community is empowered to block people who have behaved so badly that it is not considered worth our while to attempt mediation, RfCs, ArbCom, etc. This is not a "direct violation of Wikipedia Policy" (please don't try to teach others to suck eggs), but is in fact entirely in line with our blocking policy. I'll even quote it for you, because I want you to understand this point so thoroughly that you don't persist in asking such a silly question: There have been situations where a user has exhausted the community's patience to the point where he or she finds themselves blocked. Administrators who block in these cases should be sure that there is community support for the block, and should note the block on WP:ANI as part of the review process. With such support, the user is considered banned and should be listed on Wikipedia:List of banned users (under "Community"). Your block was entirely appropriate, and well within the realms of policy, community support, and common sense. If you ever want to be allowed to contribute once more to Wikipedia, you will have to provide evidence that you are willing to actually *contribute*, and that your presence will be a net benefit. This is not going to happen if you continue to insist your banning was incorrect. -- Mark Gallagher "What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!" - Danger Mouse -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.6.1/343 - Release Date: 18/05/2006