User talk:Breandan u c
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Previous comments archived here
[edit] Personal attacks
I'm not familiar with the background, but making a sustained personal attack on another edit in this manner is completely unacceptable. Such a comment is highly disruptive and I have reverted it. I have to warn you that restoring the edit or making further attacks will likely result in you being blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period by myself or another administrator. WjBscribe 03:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'd like to weigh in here and endorse what WJBscribe is saying here. Furthermore, you're returned to Wikipedia after a two month break solely to make this attack upon Kathryn NicDhàna and this concerns me greatly. Please don't repeat this behaviour - Alison ❤ 06:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- It would be nice if she was held to the same standards, but such is not the way here as I have long ago discovered. Her edits were made based in personal bias, not fact, and her alterations to the article were neither honest nor reflect a NPOV stance. Was I angry? Yes, because these fabrications and falsehoods have been spread by her and her friends without any shred of proof, including her talk pages here wherein she libelously accused me of having committed a crime, claimed to have called the police, and used a slight variation of my legal name in full view of any readers. Despite the fact that this claim is flat false, no police report has ever been produced because none exists, and the entire incident exists only in her head are indicative of the kind of diatribes that have been presented here and elsewhere for years. I long ago dismissed her and her small circle of like-minded friends- none of whom actually know me, know anything legitimate about me, or have ever spoken to me- as kooks, but making sweeping edits of an article to dismiss not one but two entire movements that are not hers or under her control based on her bias was crossing a line. I felt I had to speak out, and years of repressing outrage at the slander slipped out and I was a good deal more vociferous than necessary. I was wrong to make it so personal, she was wrong to make such sweeping and false edits and statements based on her bias. If she is not held to account for her actions, then by all means ban me, as I would want no part of such an institution. If she is to be held to account for her changes and said changes reverted to reflect the reality of the situation, then all is well. --Breandán 01:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- So, let's see if I have this straight then. You return after two months away from Wikipedia solely to have a go at Kathryn here. When you get called on it, you put up an ultimatum; "ban" you or take some action against her. Frankly given the evidence here, I know which one is most likely. From what I've seen here on Wikipedia (what happens off-wiki is of no concern nor interest to me), she is not breaking any rules. You are - Alison ❤ 02:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- "You return after two months away from Wikipedia" - I was unaware that constant or even regular visits and edits to Wikipedia were required to have a say. Frankly, I have a rich and rewarding, not to mention extremely busy, life away from the 'net and do not have the time to sit herd on wiki articles. I popped in to see how the article had progressed, noticed that every single "Celtic" group except for the one Kathryn, Paul, etc. were friendly with had been removed, and went into the talk pages to find out what had happened. There I found a rather baseless claim that justified the removal and mistakenly believed she had done it. Considering that the libelous claims I referred to in the initial post did, in fact, first originate here on Wikipedia, they DO have merit in my arguments. Archived deep within her talk pages are the very falsehoods I mentioned, including the false and unprovable claim of criminal activity. This documented history of bellicose behavior towards myself and others in the Sinnsreachd movement, with which they seem to see themselves as competing, lends credence to my questioning the validity of her NPOV on any edits made in related articles or subsections of articles that involve the removal or support for removal of material associated with the Sinnsreachd movement.
- Kathryn has her supporters, and like she they can neither be reasoned with nor can a mutual agreement be settled upon. It's been tried by myself and many others, to no avail. The point of this is not to change her mind or the minds of her friends, but to provide my side of things since I have been denied the ability to do so elsewhere. If claims are to be made here by her, then refutations of such claims and a demand for proof will likewise be made. If changes are made to an article that exhibit bias, then challenges to said changes likewise need to be made. I have already apologized- something I have yet to see reciprocated in regard to the many wrongs she has done- for bringing in personal matters external to Wikipedia. However, I will not rescind my challenges to the claims made in this forum. --Breandán (talk) 09:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- So, let's see if I have this straight then. You return after two months away from Wikipedia solely to have a go at Kathryn here. When you get called on it, you put up an ultimatum; "ban" you or take some action against her. Frankly given the evidence here, I know which one is most likely. From what I've seen here on Wikipedia (what happens off-wiki is of no concern nor interest to me), she is not breaking any rules. You are - Alison ❤ 02:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- It would be nice if she was held to the same standards, but such is not the way here as I have long ago discovered. Her edits were made based in personal bias, not fact, and her alterations to the article were neither honest nor reflect a NPOV stance. Was I angry? Yes, because these fabrications and falsehoods have been spread by her and her friends without any shred of proof, including her talk pages here wherein she libelously accused me of having committed a crime, claimed to have called the police, and used a slight variation of my legal name in full view of any readers. Despite the fact that this claim is flat false, no police report has ever been produced because none exists, and the entire incident exists only in her head are indicative of the kind of diatribes that have been presented here and elsewhere for years. I long ago dismissed her and her small circle of like-minded friends- none of whom actually know me, know anything legitimate about me, or have ever spoken to me- as kooks, but making sweeping edits of an article to dismiss not one but two entire movements that are not hers or under her control based on her bias was crossing a line. I felt I had to speak out, and years of repressing outrage at the slander slipped out and I was a good deal more vociferous than necessary. I was wrong to make it so personal, she was wrong to make such sweeping and false edits and statements based on her bias. If she is not held to account for her actions, then by all means ban me, as I would want no part of such an institution. If she is to be held to account for her changes and said changes reverted to reflect the reality of the situation, then all is well. --Breandán 01:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
FWIW, dab removed the external links you're speaking of, not Kathryn. Cheers. Pigmanwhat?/trail 03:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] No Personal Attacks
(edit conflict with WJBscribe) You should be aware that Wikipedia has a strong policy of no personal attacks and expects every editor to be civil in their interactions. Your comment on the talk page of Polytheistic reconstructionism is considered a violation of these policies. Please refrain from attacking other editors and focus on issues of content in the article. Thank you. Pigmanwhat?/trail 04:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
