User talk:207.237.228.83

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please note that as I am working on the a MedCab (details here), I will not be able to participate in any discussions regarding article content or on notes to my talk page until that is complete. Thank you for your patience.

207.237.228.83 (talk) 04:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] No personal attacks

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: User talk:Happyme22. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This was this IP's second attack on that userpage that I'm aware of. Tvoz |talk 22:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button Image:Signature_icon.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 22:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I don't think so

And this edit by your IP? If you have legitimate concerns, then provide evidence. Your sarcastic comments to another editor will not get you anywhere. Tvoz |talk 22:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence has now been supplied. Happyme22 is still resisting the necessary changes to create further Neutrality to the article. Now what?207.237.228.83 (talk) 07:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see comments to your talk page as well as discussion on Nancy Reagan article for my evidence and concerns. 207.237.228.83 (talk) 07:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I said that it appears to me that the same person made all of the comments in question, under both IPs, as the timing, targets and similarities in tone and content, are far too great to be coincidence. I still believe that. If you've apologized to the person they were directed toward, and the apology was accepted, and you don't use that kind of approach any more, then we're done. I believe that people can learn from their mistakes, but let's not pursue the issue of whether or not it all was the same person, ok? Tvoz |talk 08:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree that we should move forward and leave any misgivings in the past, and I appreciate your cooperation.
It is my sincerest hope that with all this behind us we can now move forward and address the MANY Non NPOV items that I have pointed out in the Nancy Reagan article.
Is this now possible? 207.237.228.83 (talk) 21:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nancy Reagan

Hi 207.237.228.83 :) I skimmed the talk page of the Nancy Reagan article, and I don't think that the other editors are being out of line. That article reached featured article status, the highest Wikipedia offers, and so we have to make sure that any edits to the article meet WP policies and guidelines carefully. I did have minor disagreements with the state of the article (the fact that her first name is used bothers me), but consenus overruled me, and overall it is a fine article. I have a great deal of respect for the editors that you cited, as I have seen their work on many other articles and I know that they understand policy in great detail. I think part of your problem might be that you are new, very eager, and a little unfamiliar with how things work. I'd recommend that you first create an account (because IP address edits are usually assumed to be vandalism at first sight), and then, if you're willing, get a mentor to help you understand policy, figure out which edits are good and which aren't, and argue your points better. I can do a little mentoring, or you can ask any other editor who appears to know what they are doing to help out on an article-by-article basis. Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I will gladly consider the advice you have given me regarding my status as a newie and possibly creating an account, however, it does need to me mentioned that the consensus that overruled you are the same 3 to 4 editors that are blocking any changes or considering even the possibility that there remains any Non NPOV information in this article. Isn't there something in Wikipedia about "Being Bold" with changes that come from reliable sources and are due weight?

Thanks again for the quick reply. 207.237.228.83 (talk) 22:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

IP, you also might want to review WP:CANVASS; I'm not particularly happy about the inaccurate message you've been spreading across multiple pages. I don't recall the last time I edited Reagan, the talk page and article history show appropriate editing and no issues, and by the way, Tvoz is an Obama supporter has made far more edits to Obama than to Reagan. Please stop canvassing against the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
WHOA - before I read any further on this page - and I have not yet read beyond this point - please don't make assumptions about who I support - I am an active editor on a lot of politicians' pages, notably Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Romney, Thompson, Paul, Giuliani, McCain and occasionally Kucinich and Huckabee. I have not said anywhere which of the presidential candidates - if any - I am supporting. I'm among the top editors (in terms of numbers of edits I mean) on a few of these, including Obama and Clinton, but that has a lot more to do with how often their pages require edits and reverts due to vandalism, than because I am supporting either one of them. (I also have the second highest edit count on Nelson Rockefeller, and all that reflects is that I am a New Yorker.) So please don't make assumptions. Now I'll keep reading. Tvoz |talk 02:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I think it's great that you're such an experienced editor. I politely ask that you please consider the possibility that all of my multiple points made to the Nancy Reagan discussion page (and here) could contribute to the article being perceived as having a slight Non NPOV. And I again politely ask that you assist in helping me to find malleability in the wording to that article to change this fact. Ps- To point out, I did not say whom you were or were not supporting...I said it was not relevant to this discussion or to the matter at hand. I did say that you were one of 4 editors that appeared to be resistant to my suggested changes, and I hope that you will work with the article and give my citations some validation. 207.237.228.83 (talk) 02:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Have you made any comment regarding this statement at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SandyGeorgia? 207.237.228.83 (talk) 05:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but a few points before I review WP:CANVASS:
  • A brief review of the history of the promotion of the article to FA status has significant comments by four main editors: yourself, Happyme22, Tvoz, and Wasted_Time_R. Unfortunately, these are the same 4 editors who seem to be opposed to the changes that I have suggested would bring the article into a more NPOV. This seems...coincidental, at best. 207.237.228.83 (talk) 00:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
    I participate in almost *every* FAC, and there were far more participants than four on that FAC. And I've said nothing about opposing your proposed changes. Please stop spreading inaccuracies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
    Unfortunately you seem to like to shoot before you learn how things work. I was an uninvolved editor who came to the Nancy Reagan FAC and offered my views, many of which were critical, and then did some editing and worked with Happyme to help the article reach FA status. As a result of my participation in the FAC - not as a regular editor of the article, but as a participant in the FAC - I keep the article on my watchlist. I disagree with your overall criticism of the piece, and apparently so do other editors. Your suggestion "this seems...coincidental" is both insulting and unwarranted. Tvoz |talk 03:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
    My statement still stands and I believe it to be true: "A brief review of the history of the promotion of the article to FA status has significant comments by four main editors....the same 4 editors who seem to be opposed to the changes that I have suggested would bring the article into a more NPOV. This seems...coincidental, at best". If you feel this is unwarranted or insulted, I can only say I am sorry you fell this way. 207.237.228.83 (talk) 05:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
    Wow, I am quite impressed that you participate in so many FACs. Which of my proposed changes are you supporting? 207.237.228.83 (talk) 00:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I do not see how the candidate whom Tvoz is supporting in this election is relevant to the fairness of the Nancy Reagan article on Wikipedia, especially given the detailed amount of reliable sources I have posted. Even more so, I do not know how you would know whom Tvoz is supporting or why you would post that information here. 207.237.228.83 (talk) 00:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
    You have clearly implied that she and the rest of us have a certain POV; I doubt that Tvoz does. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
    I am not implying anything about your POV; I am stating that this article has keywords, phrases, and a timeline that reads in a NonNPOV, regardles of which editors have made those edits and what those editor's personal views are. Further, as I've mentioned, I do not see how the candidate whom Tvoz is supporting in this election is relevant to the fairness of the Nancy Reagan article on Wikipedia, especially given the detailed amount of reliable sources I have posted, nor do I know how you would know whom Tvoz is supporting or why you would post that information here. 207.237.228.83 (talk) 00:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Lastly, and most important, there are multiple items that I have pointed out in this article that must be addressed. Wikipedia, as I understand it, is an encyclopedia that "anyone" can write, regardless if they have a username or not, so long as the points and information included stand within the guidlelines. I am adhering to these guidelines but there seems to be no mediation on the part of the editors involved.207.237.228.83 (talk) 00:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
    If you want things addressed, propose wording or gain consensus, but please stop spreading inaccurate rumors across multiple editors' talk pages. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
    Please do not address me with an indignant tone. As I learned (from you, actually), attacking other wikiusers will "get you nowhere". I have attempted to gain consensus without rumor and I believe my attempts fall within the guidelines of WP:CANVASS. I have also proposed several items of wording which have been struck down by the 4 editors in question. Can you recommend any other resources for me to follow? Are you willing to conceede that as this article has failed an A-Class review that perhaps, just perhaps, my suggestions may be valid and may improve the article? It is interesting, odd, and disturbing that you address these points but do not address the issue at hand (the two items below). 207.237.228.83 (talk) 00:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
    If you have issues about the article, please address them on the article talk page. I barely participate there, and I'm not likely to participate at all in an environment of personal attacks and canvassing. Again, please stop spreading false rumors about me and others across multiple talk pages. Thank you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
    I have already taken this advice but to no avail. Since my apology for the attack posts there have been none. The canvassing falls within all guidelines. I have spread no rumors that can not be substantiated with Wiki page histories. If you are not willing to help or offer realistic advice as to my (our) goal of making the article read more with more neutrality, then I would appreciate you not posting indignant and leading replies on my talk page. Thank you, in advance, for any advice you could offer. 207.237.228.83 (talk) 01:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I do not wish to have to become more aggressive with the valid changes I am politely requesting but will not hesitate to do so. Valid information on the discussion page of the article has received little more than a "No I don't think so" attitude from the editors involved without tangible reasons why these changes should not be included in the article. I suggest you review the promotion history of the article and you will see that some of the very changes I am suggesting be included (i.e. violations of Ethics Act, tone of fashion issues...) were made by other editors during the promotion process and marked as "Done" by Happyme22 but are no longer included in the article as it reads.
I will gladly read WP:CANVASS. I will also anticipate some "wiggle room" and a modicum of respect by yourself, Happyme22, Tvoz, and Wasted_Time_R that the possibility exists that parts of this article reads with a Non NPOV. Again, thank you for your input. 207.237.228.83 (talk) 00:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[outdent] I'm not going to reply to each time you say the same thing - I'll do it all here.

  • Happyme22 may have graciously accepted your apology for your attack here, but let's not forget this vulgar attack by your IP here on Happyme a few weeks earlier for which you should have been blocked and the previous almost identical ones by a different IP address which I believe was likely also you, which did earn a block. So yes, you apologized, and it's good if you have decided to stop that kind of behavior, but it might be prudent for you to tone down your threats ("I do not wish to have to become more aggressive with the valid changes I am politely requesting but will not hesitate to do so. ") and innuendo here. One has to earn respect, and I'm afraid that you've done little to encourage it.

*I have apologized before and apologize here again for any and all actual or perceived attack posts. 207.237.228.83 (talk) 05:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


*There is a procedure for dispute resolution. I was not threatening or making innuendo but simply saying that I was hopeful we would be able to find solutions without resorting up that ladder further. The first step of dispute resolution is to focus on content, not the other user, so I believe your comment that I need to "earn respect" for facts to be included in Wikipedia is out of line. The facts and cited sources speak for themselves. 207.237.228.83 (talk) 05:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, this comment that you made on the talk pages of 7 editors: "four editors in particular (Users: Happyme22, Wasted_Time_R, SandyGeorgia, and Tvoz) have consistently teamed together in support of each other's actions and edits in moving this article forward to FA status while giving little or no validity to any contrary opinions." is way out of line, incorrect, and also insulting.


*The 7 editors who received my comments were the 7 editors who participated in the history of moving the Nancy Reagan article to FA status. I made comments on their talk pages because I believed they would be interested and experienced enough to assist. 207.237.228.83 (talk) 05:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


*After re-reading the entire discussion page of the Nancy Reagan article, I do not believe my comments were out of line, nor out of accordance with the Canvassing policy, nor incorrect. If you feel insulted, I can only say that I am sorry you feel this way. 207.237.228.83 (talk) 05:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Featured articles have gone through a lot of scrutiny, as has been explained several times to you. You mention that other editors raised certain questions in the FAC and Happyme marked them as "done". Well, I haven't gone back to review this again, but it's pretty obvious that Happyme's and other editors' solutions to the many questions that were raised at FAC satisfied the editors who raised them and the others who weighed in on whether the FA status should be granted, sufficient to grant the status. So your going back now and canvassing them is somewhat out of line, and likely not going to be successful. It's not the way things are done here.
*Wikipedia maintains the database of an article's promotion history for a reason, and I assume that one is free to review that process at his or her liking. It is ironic that you find my review of that history to be inappropriate yet you imply here that your going through the same history would not be. 207.237.228.83 (talk) 05:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
*Yes, it has been explained that the articles go through much scrutiny. Unfortunately, a review of the promotion process for this article shows that items that were agreed upon to be changed -particularly becuase of a Non NPOV- have not remained in this article. 207.237.228.83 (talk) 05:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
*Yes, the changes satisfied the editors at the time of promotion. Per above, it should be noted that 4 of the satisfied editors were Happyme22, Wasted_Time_R, SandyGeorgia, and Tvoz. Also per above, the changes that satisfied the editors then have been reverted to previous (or significantly similar to previous) edits. The sufficient satisfaction of thoes editors would no longer be as such, which is why I brought this article back to their attention. 207.237.228.83 (talk) 05:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
*Not in any way to be perceived as hostile, but if you "haven't gone back to review this again", how can the editors satisfaction with the current state of the article be "pretty obvious" to you? 207.237.228.83 (talk) 05:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Of course changes can be made when there is consensus to do so. You raised some issues, they were looked at by a few editors who have kept the page on their watchlists - a couple of your points were agreed to, such as removing "landslide", a couple of questions were asked of you that you haven't replied to, and overall so far no one has come in and agreed with you that the article has POV problems. So it may be time for you to accept that.


*I can see no questions of me that remain that I have not responded to with valid, articulate, detailed, reliable information. In truth, many of the outstanding questions about the editing and writing style of this article that remain unanswered have been asked by me. 207.237.228.83 (talk) 05:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
*Simply because there has been no outpouring of support for the identified items does not mean the items are invalid. I am confident this will come, in time or with arbitration, especially after RR's article is FA, which, if anything addresses the urgency that permeates why these changes are to be addressed now. 207.237.228.83 (talk) 05:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • A suggestion to you: don't inundate a talk page with long comments - you lose your readers.
*I prefer to be detailed, but I will take this under advisement. 207.237.228.83 (talk) 05:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Finally when editors of long standing suggest to you that you read various policies, they are trying to help you understand the way things work. So it's probably a better idea to actually stop and read the policies before commenting on whether or how they apply. Tvoz |talk 03:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
*Which I have done. I can read as well as anyone else, as I hope my attention to this article suggests. I do not need to be "hand held" through policy applications...most especially not when I believe the editors in question are trying to use policy to maintain an article with a NonNPOV. 207.237.228.83 (talk) 05:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MEDCAB Request

I notice you have posted a request for mediation at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-28 Nancy Reagan; I'm not sure if you left the form blank on purpose and you're coming back to complete it, or if you were unsure how to fill out the form. Please let me know if you are having any trouble with filling out the request.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 04:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for noticing. I haven't the chance tonight but will complete the form tomorrow evening. Thanks again. 207.237.228.83 (talk) 05:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • From your last comments at MedCab, I couldn't tell if you are going forward with mediation or not. Please let me know. To be clear, as long as you are not the only one willing to participate, it could be valuable, but remember mediation isn't going to decide anything it's going to try to help you and the other users talk about and resolve the matter and get back to editing.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 20:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I am aware of this. I have been working on my posting for the the MedCab while trying to be fair and by citing previous postings and notes on talk pages..it takes a while given the extent of the "unfair games" I see being played by these users. I am moving ahead with it especially as it appears that some of the other users involved have gone about editing the article in what could be construed as a Non NPOV manner without discussing their edits anywhere first. 207.237.228.83 (talk) 01:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • At this point, I don't think it's possible to go forward. You've named 4 other parties, three of whom have openly stated their intent not to participate. User:Wasted_Time_R hasn't specifically refused, but has questioned why his or her name is on the list. There is nothing I can do to help as far as mediation goes. I may be able to offer some advice to you, but I think we can safely close the MedCab at this point. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 04:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I wish you would not. I don't see where HappyMe22 has refused to participate, only that he is waiting to see the issues I intend to address. Before proceding to arbitration, I would like some forum where I can not only point out specific items in the article where reverts to agreed upon changes that were discussed before the promotion to FA were made, but also places where discussions about POV were abandoned, where policy was used to avoid others' changes, where the users in questioned have behaved in a poor manner, and so on. As I've mentioned, it's a lot to compile and I am **certainly** working on it. To post my concerns on the article's talk page before I'm complete with my research would be not appropriate. Do you have any other advice, short of closing the MedCab and moving to arbitration, that would assist the matter? Thanks again. 207.237.228.83 (talk) 05:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I take HappyMe22's comments here (a link you provided) saying that that editor will "ignore it" to mean ignore the MedCab. There is no such thing as mediation where only one party shows, it can't be done. This entire discussion has gotten broken up all over the place, some here, some on my talk page, some at the article's talk page, some at the MedCab case, and then some on other users' talk pages. I can try to give you further advice, if you want it, but in general:

1 -- Stop editing Nancy Reagan for a while. Edit something else, in another topic altogether.

I have only made one single edit to Nancy Reagan, and it was the insertion of a page break. I have only made suggestions to the talk page, which were treated with hostility and disregard until I questioned motivations, sometimes naming the same source with direct quotes three times on that page...

2 -- Try to avoid the editors you interacted with here.

I will until my research is completed and compiled -which, btw, is proving VERY interesting and fruitful-, at which point I will bring the matters forward thru dispute resolution. If you would suggest I post my findings to my talk page first for you to look at, I'd be happy to do that, however, I do intend to move forward at some point, soon.

3 -- Consider that if all of the other editors at an article have a particular viewpoint, it doesn't mean they necessarily WP:OWN the article or that the article has WP:NPOV issues - it could be that they represent consensus - particularly where as here there was an FA. Consensus can change but you alone don't change it unless you convince others. If you can't talk with them effectively - as here, then consider a WP:3O or maybe a WP:RFC, but if the opinions all support their edits, at some point you have to concede to consensus.

Unfortunately, I do believe these editors (as well as Arcayne) are in Ownership of this article, and as the informal MedCab fell through due to their unwillingness to participate, I can hardly see how any other means can bring them to the table in a civil and open-hearted conversation. I would consider an RFC before arbitration, however, as this is clearly part of the procedure before requesting arbitration.
There are certainly points from the discussion page that I have conceded, but the only time they have done so with my opinion is when I put the MedCab into effect.

4 -- I highly recommend against a WP:RFAr, I do not think this would have any chance of being accepted for review.

Well, I guess you'll have to see my findings first. You're a lawyer, you know the evidence speaks for itself.

5 -- It doesn't help when you bring in a third party, mediator or otherwise, but continue to speak to the other parties in a condescending tone, telling them that you advise them to reconsider or to follow the mediator's advice, or whatever. Even if they say things to you - don't respond unless responding is actually likely to help things get better. (But of course, if you're not going to talk, you also shouldn't edit - at least not so that you are bringing in material they disagree with, I am NOT suggesting you should edit boldly but refuse to discuss; rather disengage from them).

As I mentioned, I have made only one insignificant edit, and my comments referring them to your comments was a way of attempting to deflect their unwillingness to come to the middle. I certainly don't think this or this or this or even this could be looked at as condescending.

6 -- Feel free to list your specific concerns here under a new heading and leave me a note to take a look and I'll try to give specific comments. But, you'd be far better off I think if you were to just drop the whole issue - you'll have a far more enjoyable editing experience.

Will do, but I'm not particularly interested in having fun here...I'm interested in the Nancy Reagain article reading and being edited as fairly as possible , and in bringing those who are using bullying to light. That, certainly, would make my editing experience on this and other articles better.

7 -- Carefully review WP:V and associated policy and guidelines so that you can keep yourself out of these kinds of disputes in the future.

All of my suggested edits come from verifiable sources - the NYTimes or firstladies.org or some such. I don't think my sources were ever in question, only how to report the information in the article, and by whom.

8 -- Get a user account. You will gain credibility (IP's are often seen as vandals until proven innocent and still potential vandals because the real identity behind the IP can change). There are many benefits and you don't have to worry about whether another party edited from the same IP address (and it's actually more secure - IPs are traceable).

I'm still considering it, but I thought that a user did not need a username for the facts he or she presents to be given validity, as long as they follow guidelines.

Cheers.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 06:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope my coments above do not seem too argumentative, esp as you've been most helpful with the situation. But, truthfully, I think you'll see what's going on once I post my findings. I mean, after all, Wikipedia has been used before for specific POV. Thanks again! 207.237.228.83 (talk) 08:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiquette alerts

In the future, when you post a wikiquette alert about a user, it is considered appropriate to let that person know of the alert, so that they can respond to your allegations. That you didn't clearly implies you attempted to do something underhanded - and before you protest, note that I see you are an editor withlots of unfriendly edits towards Happyme22, so the whole 'I didn't know' routine does not ring true and will not suffice. You handled this matter exceptionally poorly, and if it recurs, i will press to have you removed from the community. I hope you see this post of notice as exceptionally clear. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the warning. I did not follow the proper procedure for WQA by not notifying Happyme22, however I do not see this as a "clear intent that I intended to do something underhanded", nor that this was handled "exceptionally poorly". It is ironic that here, here, here - and in various other places - the users involved have acnowledged that I am somewhat of a novice, yet you state "the whole 'I didn't know' routine does not ring true and will not suffice"...and use it to make a somewhat threatening sounding statement such as "post of notice (should be) exceptionally clear". I would also remind you of your posts regarding Happyme22's ownership issues regarding the Ronald Reagan article here, as well as the same Happyme22's ownership issues identified by other, uninvolved users, for example, here. More of these examples will be identified in the mediation form as it is completed tonight. Again, thank you for the warning and I will be sure to heed your advice as I move forward with the mediation. 207.237.228.83 (talk) 01:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Splendid, and thank you for letting me know that you sought outside input on the subject. In point of fact, I am not threatening your ability to use Wikipedia or complete a mediation. I am clearly noting that if another 'accident' occurs, I would pursue stringent measures in curtailing your ability to edit in Wikipedia.
And if you feel i am being too harsh with you, consider that edits that suggest another user "suck your cock/and suck it hard" and other edits (1), including attempting to canvas me to help in an article where you accuse multiple editors of either OWNership or worse don't really foster a spirit of professionalism. In fact, i consider it a deleterious influence in Wikipedia and a corrosive influence on professional behavior.
Quite honestly, Happyme22 dealt with you a lot more politely than I would have been inclined to, and anyone who knows me can confirm that sending you screaming into a corner, weeping like a 5-year-old after getting the switch is not beyond my capabilities as an editor. However, I have learned that being mean and rude and uncivil rarely gets anything done, and it doesn't even offer a sense of satisfaction, as it doesn't fix the person who clearly needs an amount of re-education.
I am glad that this process is helping you learn how to be a better editor. Happy does like the Reagans; he doesn't try to conceal it. However, he is refreshingly willing to admit when he is wrong, or presented with a logical argument. You should consider yourself lucky for that. If you make a good argument, you can change his mind. if you don't, you only have yourself to blame.
Now that I've said my piece, understand that bringing the Double-Handled tool of Harsh is to assist you, not scare you. learn from it, please. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I do not know what outside input you believe I have told you I sought, other than the dispute resolution process. 207.237.228.83 (talk) 05:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Your notes regarding the attack posts and perceived attack posts and canvassing have already been addressed on this very page in this posting. 207.237.228.83 (talk) 05:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Please note that as I am working on the a MedCab (details here), I will not be able to participate in any discussions regarding article content or on notes to my talk page until that is complete. Thank you for your patience.