No, George, the page history shows Sfahey and I were working on it,
including one revert that I made on 10 March, then on 11 March you made
several edits that removed the facts I'd installed, then on 13 March I
edited again, and you reverted it and the actual edit war began.
BTW, the link you posted to what you claim was my first revert went to
the last edit on the page. I don't know why and I don't care.
Yes, I compared your actions to a rape, and I explained right along with
the comparison why taking that personally would be inane. That you
would take it out of context in order to grandstand is telling. Learn
the difference between an analogy and an attack.
I was not acting unilaterally, I was imbuing the article with factual
truth and including some of the elements of the discussion. I wasn't
participating in the discussion initially because I assumed reasonable
people would accept the facts. You don't seem to be a reasonable
person, preferring to use your revert to try to hold me hostage in the
talk page.
Your desire to pretend to be the owner of the page precipitated what
followed. Both Dan100 and I have called you on that. I am happy to see
that you have taken a step back from the page, but not happy that you
spent the time to create this laughable case. You persistently force
people into unnecessary discussion of innocuous edits. The fact that
you reverted then later included all of my additions, but refused to
elide any of yours, is the most telling evidence of all. You just don't
understand how Wikipedia works.
And if you don't think that embargoing the truth and twisting the facts
and playing politics are less civil than using figurative language to
point out someone else's flawed reasoning, then you don't understand
yourself.
--Blair