User talk:Wikifan12345/Archive 2

Sources

Wikifan, please stop using blogs and other websites, such as this and this, in Israel-Palestine articles. These are very contentious articles, and for that reason we have to use only the best sources. Not only academic historians, but historians who specialize in whatever area is under discussion, or well-informed primary sources. Anyone could find any opinion on a website and if they were all added, we'd have chaos. If you keep using that kind of source, all it will do is trigger edit-warring. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Digital Journal is highly reputed and notable blog and is commonly referenced in the Israel/Palestine arena. Apologies if it is not considered reliable, but I figured with the Jpost article it would give a higher sense of notoriety. I've seen The Huffington Post be used as references in the past. I am not sure what the jfjp ref is. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The second ref is one you used yourself. Look, if you continue to use bad sources, I'll take this to WP:AE, because all you are doing is causing edit wars. Please, just use academic sources and all will be well. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. When did I use the JFJ source? I checked the diffs and found no such reference but I could have missed something. If it is evident that I did not use that source could you please strike your comment? Thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Removing reference

I would like to assume good faith, but I don't see how removing this reference is supposed to improve the Israeli settlement article [1] Halfacanyon (talk) 07:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. The reference was simply a duplicate which is why I removed it. There is a way to re-direct the same source to multiple footnotes but you will probably have to ask someone more experienced like Nableezy. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The reference was NOT a duplicate. Please don't lie, Wikifan12345, it makes it impossible to work with you. Halfacanyon (talk) 07:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Stop POV-pushing at Israeli settlement

You keep removing sourced material, inserting unsourced material and, as already noted, outright removing references.

Also, you added "According to a 2008 annual report by Kav LaOved" when in fact the material is supported by references from both KavLaoved AND B'Tselem. Halfacanyon (talk) 07:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I am not removing sourced material. I am in fact ADDING sourced material from the BBC article which you inaccurate paraphrased and copy/pasted. The section needs to reflect the objectivity of the source, you just took out the most extreme pointers and ignored everthing else. Second, it was an annual report by Kav LaOved. The B'Tselem is something else, check the reference again. I encourage you to assume good faith and relax, accusing others of POV pushing is unacceptable. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Explain this [2] edit then. There's no point working with you if you're going to lie Halfacanyon (talk) 07:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC).

What do you mean when you say "The B'Tselem is something else"? It supports the facts that you have tried to misrepresent as the opinions of Kav LaOved. Halfacanyon (talk) 07:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not lying. First, you cite the same source twice in 2 paragraphs. You don't need to do that, just put the source at the end of both paragraphs. The Btselem source you claimed collaborated with the Kav LaOved report is false. Check the source. It is a dateless expose on the hardships of Palestinian workers in the West Bank but has nothing to do with Kav LaOved. I removed the paragraph because I condensed into the previous one. I removed the biased language and did some more paraphrasing. Please stop accusing me of things I am not doing or I will have to get an admin. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You DIDN'T condense that paragraph into the previous one, you just deleted it wholesale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halfacanyon (talk • contribs) 08:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome to "get an admin" whatever that means. Looking through your editing history it seems you have a history of being disruptive and difficult to work with while pursuing your pro-Israel agenda by edit warring. You should probably stop editing in this topic area if you are incapable of taking a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV).

The B'Tselem article specifically collaborates the fact that Palestinian workers have few legal rights. Anyway, you can't just say a source is false and then delete it.

I am still waiting for an explanation from you of why you keep deleting the Haaretz source about pollution. Halfacanyon (talk) 08:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I did not delete it wholesale. I condensed the legal action into the same paragraph. Here is my version: 1. Here is yours. I did not delete any information outside of redundant disputes. I did not delete the Haaretz source, I may have moved it or removed it for being a duplicate. My version still retains the Haaretz link. You really need to stop accusing me of POV-pushing. Your edits do not reflect neutrality standards, picking and choosing information while charging words is extremely bad taste in these sorts of articles. The B'tselem affirms Palestinians are experiencing hardships but has nothing to do with the 2008 annual report. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, you didn't "condense" the following information you removed it: However, very little action occurred after that ruling and only a minority of Palestinian workers have achieved the same rights as Israeli workers. The Israeli authorities that enforce labour law (the Civil Administration and the Ministry of Industry, Trade & Labor) have undertaken little action at the settlements to enforce a minimum wage and other benefits. According to Kav LaOved, the bodies have released a statement "according to which they have no plans of enforcing the High Court of Justice ruling whatsoever". Also, employers of Palestinians fake pay slips, report false hours and work days to make it seem that the employee is being paid the minimum wage.

Secondly, you did delete the Haaretz source about sewage pollution and you keep doing so. [3], [4].

If you can't keep track of whether you have deleted something or not, then you probably should take a break from editing on Wikipedia. Halfacanyon (talk) 08:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

First, you did not respond to my B'tselem explanation. I'm going to assume you agree. You also did not respond to my explanation for the BBC duplicate removal, so I am going to assume you accept that. Second, no I did not delete the Haaretz link. My version has here. Source #166. and yes, I did condense the discrimination section. In spite of the ruling, Kav LaOved believes the law will not be enforced as only a few workers have gained rights that they are legally entitled to. The ruling has however allowed Palestinian workers to file lawsuits in Israeli courts which has led to an average settlement of "100,000 shekels. - Mine .

However, very little action occurred after that ruling and only a minority of Palestinian workers have achieved the same rights as Israeli workers. The Israeli authorities that enforce labour law (the Civil Administration and the Ministry of Industry, Trade & Labor) have undertaken little action at the settlements to enforce a minimum wage and other benefits...etc...etc...etc..yours . Your versing was exceedingly bloated and was practically copy and paste. You also include no mention of the legal settlements and overstate the situation. I also corrected the MoS style, you continue to write in British English. I condensed an entire paragraph into 2 sentences, that is perfectly okay. I would hope you strike your accusation that I am continuing to delete cited information because I am not. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I do not accept your dismissal of B'Tselem as a source. As I have repeatedly said, the B'Tselem article supports the assertians about Palestinian working conditions in the West Bank and should not be removed. Also, you should not misrepresent _facts_ as _opinions_.

As I stated before, you didn't condense or summarize the following sourced information, you removed it: However, very little action occurred after that ruling and only a minority of Palestinian workers have achieved the same rights as Israeli workers. The Israeli authorities that enforce labour law (the Civil Administration and the Ministry of Industry, Trade & Labor) have undertaken little action at the settlements to enforce a minimum wage and other benefits. According to Kav LaOved, the bodies have released a statement "according to which they have no plans of enforcing the High Court of Justice ruling whatsoever". Also, employers of Palestinians fake pay slips, report false hours and work days to make it seem that the employee is being paid the minimum wage.

There are 2 Haaretz references, one regarding sewage and one regarding the waste dump. You have confused the two. You keep deleting the Haaretz article about sewage: [5], [6].

Again, if you can't keep track of whether you have deleted something or not, then you should take a break from editing on Wikipedia. Halfacanyon (talk) 08:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not dismissing B'Tselem as a source. I use it all the time, and I did not remove it. It did not collaborate with the 2008 report and was not active in the other organizations successful legal fight in the Israeli courts. Let me be more blunt. I rewrote your copy and paste. there, I felt condense was a little bit more nice but since you seem to think your edits are so neutral perhaps I should be more honest. If I removed a second Haaretz link I am sorry. Can you please post them? You really need to relax because I am just trying to improve the article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank God you finally admitted that you removed the Haaretz reference! It seems that you don't even know what you're doing. You should probably stop editing this article.

Secondly, I did not copy/paste anything. I reused some phrases but that is perfectly acceptable and unavoidable.

Thirdly, the reason that B'Tselem is useful as a source is that it provides a second reference to facts that you have tried to misrepresent as the opinions of Kav LaOved Halfacanyon (talk) 08:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I am not saying I removed the Haaretz source, you duplicated the BBC several times. I might have removed the Haaretz link under the same notion. You cannot post the same source twice without re-directing it, it gives the false impression that the article/section has more unique sources. Second, yes you did practically copy and paste. I rewrote your extremely unbalanced fact-selection with more neutral language. I did NOT misrepresent the facts as Kav LaOved. I have been very specific in my responses to your outrageous and inflammatory claims. I even compared the different versions to show you how wrong you are. It is you who I believe needs to take a break and perhaps read up on neutrality rules. You have reverted every single one of my edits back to your original version. That is ridiculous, either my edits were OR or uncited. Neither is the case. Please respond to the talk page or we'll have to go through a dispute resolution. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't "duplicate" the BBC source, I used the same footnote in multiple paragraphs. This is perfectly legitimate.

And you DID remove the Haaretz source, you just admitted it and the links prove it.

And the accusation of plagiarism is extremely serious and easy to verify.

Either prove it or retract your claim. Halfacanyon (talk) 08:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

you used the same footnote but the source came out as two. I.,e 167...168. Check the version. See how my responses are very lenghty, you continue to jump to accusation after accusation and immediately started editing with bad faith. You need to take a break, your edits are bordering ownership. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

[7] is my original edit. I don't see any duplications.

And I don't hear you retracting or proving your claim. Halfacanyon (talk) 09:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. That is a different version. This is the one I am referring to: Source 164 and 166 are duplicate sources of Haaretz. Source 163 and 165 are duplicates of Haaretz.. You also had duplicate sources for the section discrimination, you used the Ka Loved or whatever it's called twice in the same section without re-directing. Wikifan12345 (talk) 16:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Follow up User Halfacanyon has been blocked. --Shuki (talk) 21:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Talk page

Hi Wikifan! I am assuming you are talking about the table of contents. It will return automatically when you have enough headings, but in case it does not, you can use _TOC_ to place it anywhere you want on the page. Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! It works now. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

stop bringing up my username

please. I thought we had an understanding to avoid each other, you can't really be doing that if you raise my name in discussions that have absolutely nothing to do with me. Nableezy (talk) 00:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Apologies. I wasn't trying to get you in trouble or anything. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Drive by tag

Please explain why you reverted my npov tag to Palestinian views of the peace process in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, and described it as driveby, when I had written a 6 point list on the talk page.93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Points don't matter. Many users disagree with the language of an article but that doesn't mean it is inherently POV. Your points such as "illogical organization" and "bizarre" are not particularly threatening nor relevant tag-wise. Wikipedia:NPOV dispute - Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added only as a last resort. Trust me, was once under the impression that an article that had a POV problem necessitated a tag but the rules are much more strict. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Elections in Israel

Hi Wikifan! Thank you for creating the article. Unfortunately, these days I'm a little full with work and don't have much time to work on content; however, I will definitely contribute to the article as time allows. Can't promise anything though as I'm still not finished with Operation Pleshet, which is my top priority at the moment. Please add more to the elections article if you can! Thanks, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually I created Voting in Israel but it seems that article is basically a stub version of Elections. Thanks for the message. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Military rights abuses

Well, you can start with this info form the United Nations page:

UN peacekeepers have been accused of child rape, sexual abuse or soliciting prostitutes during various peacekeeping missions, starting in 2003, in Congo, Haiti, Liberia, Sudan, Burundi and Côte d'Ivoire.

References

Forgive me if I have doubts about how long the information would stay up. I wonder about beginning an article on United Nations Peacekeeping troops, which would include successes, failures, and abuse of civilian populations.Historicist (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there not already an article on peacekeepers? I like that idea. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked again

Oh dear, you've been edit warring again. So I don't suppose this message is coming as any great surprise. I've blocked you for 1 week for WP:3RR at 1948 Palestinian exodus William M. Connolley (talk) 06:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Wikifan12345 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hi. This is most unfortunate that Slim would choose edit warring boards instead of resolving disputes cordially. For the record - Slim's representation of the history is grossly inaccurate, I was not reverting Slim's edit, at least not in a war-like fashion. If I was allowed to comment at the edit war notice this would have been explained. There was nothing controversial about this "reparations" word and it came it went as the page was edited frequently. It was not the focus of the dispute. See Slim unresponsive to paragraph dispute yet continues editing article anyways I even forwarded my concerns straight to her userpage when she was non-responsive twice: "moved to talk", "moved to talk." While I'm not totally surprised Slim had to rely on sanctioning measures rather than actually approaching the article in a productive manner, it is still very disturbing. Her submission does not accurately reflect the edits taking place Separately, Here is SlimVirgin's edit warring out all of my edits: July 3nd Diff July 2nd Diff July 2nd Diff July 2 diff July 2nd diff July 1st diff RolandR revert on behalf of Slim - claiming material is propaganda July 29 July 29 July 29 I felt the realities of what had occurred should be made clear. How Slim casually describes the dispute is grossly inaccurate and almost fictionalized. I explicitly asked her to refer to talk so we don't end up edit warring each other, but perhaps that was her ultimate intention. For the source of this problem, I encourage you to read through the lengthy talk discussion. Also, a little unrelated - but Slim has accused me of being party to a CAMERA conspiracy at a dubious ANI authored by a sock (it was later closed and the sock was banned). Perhaps those feelings transitions into a cooked edit war report?

Decline reason:

If when you're unblocked, you want report another editor on a noticeboard, you're welcome to do so. However, the actions of other editors aren't relevant to determining whether you should be unblocked. I suggest you file another unblock request that focuses on why you should be unblocked.PhilKnight (talk) 09:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Wikifan12345 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hello. In terms of why I should be unblocked, I can honestly say I was genuinely not attempting to remove Slim from the article by warring her additions. As the policy states: "Wikipedia pages develop by discussion, with users following editing policy and trying to work together to develop consensus, and by seeking dispute resolution and help if this isn't working." From the very beginning of the dispute I cordially requested Slim to work in talk to weed out any disputes regarding factual inaccuracies. I made every attempt to do just that. This was not a competition between two editors but a goal to create a better article. I wrote drafts, enumerated rationales, expanded discussions with little assistance. Edit warring isn't realistic anyways because the reversions are ultimately corrected - I know this, trust me. So you ask me why I should be unblocked based on the charge of edit warring, I would say that in all sincerity it was not in my mindset nor does the classic qualities of edit warring in my contributions to the overall article and talk resonate, in my personal opinion of course. I made a strong effort and will continue to make an effort in discussion with Slim but this block report is obviously a set back faith-wise. Thanks for very the quick response. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Repeatedly undoing other users' edits is indeed edit-warring, even when you are certain that you are in the right. The correct order goes: first you find consensus on the talk page, and THEN you change the article. It's much easier to get something useful done that way. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

For the record - I was not edit warring - sorry, I fail to understand you. You think 4R in 24h isn't edit warring? William M. Connolley (talk) 07:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for the misconception. I am submitting a revised unblock request. Edit: Revised.Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Might I add that I am not expecting an unblock but I would hope the sentence would be reduced to more reasonable 24hrs/48hrs because in comparison to what had occurred, a week sentence is major overkill. Especially when considering there were multiple parties. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, based on your unblock request, you seem to have a battleground mentality, an in this context a 1-week block is entirely appropriate. PhilKnight (talk) 10:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I posted a more clarified request at your suggestion but perhaps an uninvolved administrator could answer? Not to question your aptitude in administration, but both William and you have at one point or another actively involved in editorial and behavioral disputes with myself. At one point I might have endorsed William's removal of administrator privileges following another editors admin abuse report though it was many months ago. This isn't sanctioned by policy but I thought I'd ask since this is a week. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I asked, For the record - I was not edit warring - sorry, I fail to understand you. You think 4R in 24h isn't edit warring? You've failed to answer. I was not reverting Slim's edit, at least not in a war-like fashion suggests a total failure to understand what you are doing, which bodes ill for an unblock. You seem to think that minimising what you've done will help. It won't William M. Connolley (talk) 13:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

User:SlimVirgin isn't the only other person at Wikipedia, or the only other person interested in this subject. WP:DISPUTE is full of strategies that work for helping to find the best version of an article without edit-warring, and they work. Blocks usually get longer when you are blocked repeatedly for the same thing; since this is your third block for edit-warring, a week is appropriate. The next one will probably be either two weeks or one month, depending on the discretion of the blocking admin. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

If you sift through the discussion you will see that I made a great effort in attempting a consensus with Slim. She was not active in the discussion as the dispute became more exact, and in spite of my instance that she refer controversial edits to talk as she did to mine she continued to edit the article with false summaries and rather arrogant responses. Considering her extremely hostile and mean character assessments before the dispute began, such as accusing me of being a CAMERA sock and a propaganda tool, while also engaging in a rather unproductive resolution in the article talk, it created an atmosphere that defied all civil policy. What cannot be denied is that all edits point towards an attempt to remove a disputing user from the article through gaming the self-report system rather than doing what was right. If the consensus is my edits constituted as edit-warring so be it (or, it is what it is), but how this whole problem has unraveled is very very strange. Slim has required a solid reputation and as far as I know is well-respected among admins and users alike but my experience with her has been nothing short of disturbing. I promise you that in future situations, where my user-character is being assessed through judgmental, provocative, and at times downright libelous descriptions, I will refer to the punishment system when I feel good-faith and the urge for dispute resolution is not a mutual. At this point it is simply to cover my bases, rarely have I relied on the system to solve my problems but it seems everyone else does so why shouldn't I. BTW, I fully endorse your rationale in how articles should be edited. 100%. Unfortunately, it seems Slim's behavior has been mostly dismissed by virtue of her having reported me first for edit warring even though it was clear her approach involved calculated warring from the very very beginning. This was partially accepted by Phil when he said something similar to, "Disputes outside of edit warring should be deferred to the appropriate board." There was no doubt her actions was far more hostile and punishing compared to the edit-warring report (which in my experience tends be abused by editors who prefer not to collaborate), but it seems that is irrelevant and will not have an impact on her user for now. I do however appreciate your response, though I wish it was more reflective of my meticulous and precise explanation of the events that occurred. I ask if this block will prevent me from lodging a complaint against Slim and others. Is there a "statute of limitations" clause or something like it? For everyone else, see ya in a week. Wikifan12345 (talk) 14:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Wikifan12345. You have new messages at Cerejota's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cerejota (talk) 13:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

there is a reason...

... People take wikibreaks. Try not giving a fuck. I know its hard, but its better for all the involved, including your cause.--Cerejota (talk) 13:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

You'd be surprised how hard I've tried to not give a...you know. It seems most of the claims I've made have largely been ignored simply I failed to report Slim on her edit warring (which was first, and far more consistent). I'm not sure what you mean by cause. I noticed a series of factual inaccuracies within the article and did my best to correct them through lengthy dispute resolutions. All I got was accusations that I was party to the CAMERA conspiracy and my attempts to collaborate were nothing less than to promote an uncompromising pro-Israel agenda. I'm being slightly generous, Slim had a lot more to say than that. Do you know if I can lodge an ANI against the various editors who have accused me of being a sock, among other things? I'm not looking for blood or punishment but I just want to set a precedent in case future harassment cases arise. Thanks for the message. Wikifan12345 (talk) 13:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

It is unclear to me if you really don't understand, or are just pretending. I'll WP:AGF and assume that you really don't understand. In that case you need to re-read my comment of 13:25, 3 July 2009 and actually think about what I said. You need to understand that *you* were edit warring, and this is a problem for you irrespective of anyone else's behaviour. My best guess is that any complaint at ANI about sock stuff would just be a waste of time. Sorry to be blunt, but it looks to me as though you are trying to deflect, in your own mind, any criticism of your behaviour by asserting that others are guilty. It may work in your head, but it won't work outside it William M. Connolley (talk) 14:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello Connolley. I get that I was edit-warring, if you read my unblock request you will see that I said that. What you don't understand is the context of said edit-warring - Slim edited out all my additions, moved everything to talk and demanded I explain it all. I did that, and then she would never respond. She claimed everything was ok per "consensus" when it clearly was not. Basically, the illusion that this edit-warring was the source of the problem is counter-productive. I encourage you to read through the discussion and respond to my enumeration above. I don't understand why you are giving Slim a free pass simply because she happened to have reported me first. Her edit warring was far more extensive but I still assumed good faith, and dedicated a lot of time in trying to collaborate. She was evasive, and when I thought I was doing that right thing she reports me for edit-warring. that's totally absurd and was an obvious attempt to remove from the article. Whether you believe that or not is totally your decision. There is currently a Wikipedia:Civility/Poll that corroborates my feelings - perhaps you should comment. This is not unique. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, she accused me of being part of a CAMERA conspiracy. Several times, at a hounding ANI. If I were to accuse you of being part of a Electronic Intifada conspiracy and went through your edits years ago to prove that theory, I'm sure I'd be up for a major block. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to have one last try, and then give up. I get that I was edit-warring, if you read my unblock request you will see that I said that - no. I don't see that from your unblock request. I see a lot of excuse-making. Moreover, although I've tried to tell you that the reason for your block is your edits, not anyone else's, 95% of your reply is about someone else William M. Connolley (talk) 08:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello again. Yes, I was very explicit in my "edit-warring." Though not how you define it: "For the record - Slim's representation of the history is grossly inaccurate, I was not reverting Slim's edit, at least not in a war-like fashion." Then I enumerated Slim's edit-warring (which you has not been recognized) and explained the context of the dispute (which also has not been recognized), I offered more clarity in the 2nd unblock: "I can honestly say I was genuinely not attempting to remove Slim from the article by warring her additions." Considering the dispute was with Slim, and she engaged in edit-warring, and she reported me while we were supposedly attempting to write a paragraph draft, demonstrates a severe lack of integrity. So I recognize the literal definition of edit-warring but reject your language in how this is somehow a Wikifan problem when in reality the situation was much broader. Your apologism is slightly odd - considering the dispute is between me and her. I don't like leaving information out and prefer to cover all bases - if your attempting to stifle some sort of "confession" you might be disappointed. :D And again, the diffs she posted were irregular and misrepresented, we weren't warring over "reparations." that word came and went, it was not the subject of the conflict. statements such as "95% of the your reply is about someone else" is very frustrating. You seem more concerned about the legal aspect rather than the reality. Had I reported Slim for edit-warring, which I could very well have since she racked up 6+ reverts well before I got my 4, how would you wield your sysops privileges? Differently? This kinds of disputes are breeding ground for bad faith and dirty tricks which is why I think you should offer an opinion at the civility poll. It is certainly valued by many. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)