On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 07:41:20 -0500, "david(a)election.demon.co.uk"
<david(a)election.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>What I said was that *you are a party political
activist editing
>articles on politicians, and frequently in a way which causes conflict
>with other editors*. That does not imply that you are either right or
>wrong, only that your style of editing, combined with your known
>interests and choice of articles, causes conflict.
I think disingenuousness is unbecoming, Guy,
So do I, which is why I was unhappy about your disingenuous
characterisation of my statement.
and your meaning was quite plain.
Indeed, which invites the question why you chose to misrepresent it as
something else.
Given all you have said about me, you have a strange
definition of
'friend'.
Sometimes your friends tell you that you are an idiot. This is
usually because you have been an idiot. Choosing to interpret this as
enmity tends to mean that you rapidly run out of "critical friends".
Politicians tend not to want critical friends, Wikipedians need them.
It really does not matter at all what your interpretation is of the
content outcome when you are blocked, the fact that you *were*
blocked, several times, for revert warring and other disruptive
behaviour, is an indication that your manner of interaction with
others needs work, and that you have, as yet, failed to accept that
fact.
I am an argumentative, opinionated, grumpy, foul-mouthed middle-aged
git who spends half his Wikilife wrestling with trolls and POV-pushers
yet I still (miraculously) have an empty block log. I like to think
this is because I can accept valid criticism, at least when offered
sufficiently bluntly that I get the point. That could, of course, be
a piece of truly titanic hubris, but I would not be the best person to
judge that. One thing I do *not* do is assert that I am always right.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG