Guy Chapman writes:
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, and your meaning was quite plain. The point you have been making has not been about "right or wrong" but about your insinuations, for which you have been unable to produce any actual evidence, that I am advancing my own POV. You refer to "my known interests" when what you mean is the POV you perceive me as having. However, your perceptions have been and are wrong. That is very objectionable. I doubt you or anybody else can accurately discern my opinions from reading my edits.
See also above, where your use of a deliberately misleading edit summary is used to make accusations against others.
No it isn't. I was just having a light-hearted joke with the edit summary (no-one could write a long article about 338,171), and commenting that it would be no bad thing if speedy patrollers should look into things a bit more before jumping to delete. That's an implicit criticism but I wouldn't go further than that. It's a mistake I have made myself once (Catpiano).
Nor do you appear to know who your friends are - I was against any sanction when you edited Peter Tatchell in defiance of your ArbCom ban, for example, and I unblocked you as soon as you undertook to stop the edit war on this article.
Given all you have said about me, you have a strange definition of 'friend'.
In every case where I have been blocked, the situation has been resolved in favour of the position I was advocating. If I come across as forceful in making a case, this is because I believe the case has great force. I am also undeterred by the prospect of being blocked. You can actually change that approach in an instant if you want to.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ .
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)