[WikiEN-l] Re: Violation of blocking policy by user "40277"

[Stormie]

James Marshall wrote:
> Stormie's post just came through-- Stormie, don't misrepresent it. Some of
> your post is answered above, but for what isn't: I did not ignore the
> comments on my talk page, though I didn't see the last one before I was
> banned.

Fair enough, the last warning from Oberiko was indeed the clearest statement
that what was needed was a discussion on the talk page. It's a shame that
that wasn't spelled out more clearly earlier in the piece.

> The first ones were insults toward me, and my response to Texture was
> firmly-worded, but hardly a "mischievous attack"-- it was modeled on what
> Texture said to me, to illustrate the symmetry of the situation.

I probably spoke too hastily there. It just seems that we get frequent
posts to this mailing list from people who claim to have just discovered
Wikipedia, made their very first contribution.. and been unfairly banned.
Yet they quote chapter and verse from various policy pages to try to
produce some technicality according to which they were unjustly treated.

Needless to say, this gets a bit wearing, and thus the first thought that
came to my mind when I read your post to Texture was "god, another banned
troll returning anonymously to stir up more trouble". Especially when you
start talking about the 3 Revert Rule and your reverts not really being
reverts because they were reverts of reversions, etc.

If you are genuinely a new user, I apologize for this suggestion
unreservedly. I jumped to conclusions concerning you due to the actions
of others.

> In any case, he avoided answering my points and merely repeated his
> usual "vandalism" mantra. As for my not discussing it, it was Texture,
> Oberiko, and Jiang who seemed to not want to discuss it.

I have to say, as the person trying to change the status quo on an
established article in what proved to be a controversial fashion, the onus
is on you to start the discussion and justify your change.

Texture and Oberiko both asked you to discuss the matter on the talk page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Ronald_Reagan&diff=4235469&oldid=4234848
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:24.4.202.208&diff=0&oldid=4247588

> Further still, what I added was less POV than what those others wanted.
> Why aren't you applying your complaints to the others? Double standards,
> maybe?

Not at all. I actually agree with your edits. But there is a right way to
go about things (which leads to a quality article that everyone can approve
of) and a wrong way (which leads to chaos and the same edits being endlessly
reverted and re-inserted).

Look, this has all been needlessly unpleasant, but I hope you can understand
WHY your edits met with hostility, even from people who DON'T disagree with
your content, just the way you went about inserting it.

As the rest of this message showed, you clearly have some good stuff to
contribute to this: I suggest you take that, stick it on [[Talk:Ronald
Reagan]], and have at it! I think you'll find quite a number of Wikipedia
editors who share your views and would be happy to try to thrash out a more
balanced section on Reagan's "period of prosperity".

What would be really helpful is some figures concerning wealth distribution
to put those "GDP grew, inflation dropped" claims into perspective.. reckon
you can rustle them up?

I trust that if you do so, everyone involved will treat your contributions
with good faith.

Any chance we can put this behind us and move forwards?

Cheers!
David...