User talk:Kwork2: Difference between revisions

Archives

Archive 2 (first archive)

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

hi Malcolm, i posted to the Village Pump thread which you mentioned on my Talk page. thanks for doing that. I have a different theory as regards what you were experiencing in that board and i explained it for you in that thread (that this is a Wikipedia problem, not just a FTNboard problem). your discussion with me about that here or on my Talk page is welcomed. I encourage you to consult my Talk Page's archive on this topic prior. thanks. -- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk)

I have opened a thread about the NPOV of the very definition of the Jesus myth hypothesis Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Jesus_myth_hypothesis.2C_reliable_source_conflict and was wondering if you have any idea on what to do given we have several reliable sources that don't appear to agree with one another.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. May I recommend that you stop responding to Untwirl. That may mean that she/he gets the last word, but so be it. There's no need to answer every message of hers/his. Just a suggestion. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 20:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course you are right, as is so often the case. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. arimareiji (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malcom, I'm sorry to do this, but you should be keenly aware of the three revert rule by now. I've blocked you 24 hours for breaking it at Self-hating Jew. Revert warring over good faith edits, even those which you might find highly nettlesome or straightforwardly wrong, is highly disruptive and hurtful to the project. Please don't edit war anymore. If a good faith edit is so untowards as to be way beyond what you think consensus should bring, bring it up on the talk page and other editors will likely pitch in, one way or another, sooner rather than later. More or less none of us get all the edits we want here, it's what we put up with for having input into this encyclopedia. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for 3rr, edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen Gale, this could not have come at a better time. I really need a wiki-break. I don't feel badly about it. Although it was not my intention to violate 3RR, I'm just not good at keeping track. Anyhow, one editor who I admire a lot, User:Boodlesthecat, was blocked for a year. He was trying to do the right thing, but was outnumbered. I am sure that the edits of the users opposing were acting in "good faith," even though they are mostly schmucks, creeps, and liars. No one can live in this world, or wiki-world, without dealing with schmucks, creeps, and liars. Its just the way things are. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've lengthened your block to a week because of that blatant and sweeping personal attack on the other editors and because this is at least your third block for edit warring. Like many things in life, Wikipedia isn't for everyone. Maybe you can find a way to get along with other editors without stirring up these seemingly endless kerfluffles but either way, I hope you'll use this time off to put some thought into it. I do wish you all the best, Malcom. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A week is even better. As I said I need a wiki-break. I knew you would extend the block over that, and would have been surprised only if you did not. But this is doing nothing to defend the article from the mean Malcolm Schosha, because I already said I will not be editing it for quite some time [1]. I decided if I am getting no support, then it is not worth bothering with the article -- particularly since no one seems to be reading it but the editors. I took it off my watch list.

Could you put a new block template on the page that shows the one week block? I would appreciate that. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spare me. If you want the unblock reviewed, post an unblock template. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I wanted the block be reviewed, I would have written a request for that. I would appreciate your putting a block template on the page that shows the extension to one week. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At least I know your account hasn't been compromised: Now you're trying to bicker over a block template. When does it end, Malcom? How about now? Gwen Gale (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your question. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really do feel cheated getting a one week block without the template to commemorate it. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for 3rr, edit warring, incivility. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. This message added at user's request by Looie496 (talk · contribs), who is not an admin and does not claim any authority.

Thanks, Looie496. You are a gentleman and a scholar. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that more users drop by my talk page -- to see the latest, I suppose -- than I ever realized. Perhaps I should try to do something to make things here more interesting than just the usual bi-weekly block from Gwen Gale ^{[citation needed]}. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"...the usual bi-weekly block..."? Your block log says otherwise. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are very few users who would take that description of my problems with you, "the usual bi-weekly block from Gwen Gale," as intended to be a literal statement of fact. Strange that you would give such a literal-minded and humorless reading to what was a joke -- howbeit, a joke based on circumstances. You may, for example, remember this [2] in which you did not block me, but clearly would have liked to.

Since, as you know, I am a professional artist, and since the obligatory annual process of renewing my artistic license was completed just last month ^{[citation needed]}; I reserve the right to use humor and symbolic expressions of truth as I see fit on my own talk page. (Hint: Your apparent inability to understand my use of humor, or understand the actual nature of just about anything else I say, might be a good reason for you to hand administration of my wiki-problems to another administrator.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or, you could stop the edit warring, incivility, tendentious, confrontational editing on sensitive topics and wikilawyering which get you starring roles on admin notice boards almost every week (and that's no joke). Gwen Gale (talk) 15:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I did the right thing by trying to stop three editors who gang raped an article. My only regret is that I did not succeed in defending the article from them. No one who looks at their changes to that article could possibly say what they did is NPOV. Neither was my participation in the editing process of the article uncivil. It is true I have no respect for editors who wanted an article that contained their POV only. Why should I respect such editors? But my expressions of disrespect have been limited to one or two occasions on my own talk page.

As for your accusation that I am "wikilawyering," that is complete nonsense. The more rational accusation would be that I never learned WP rules. For instance it was a couple of days before I bothered to look at the grounds you gave for blocking me, and found to my surprise that there are no grounds for such a block. Despite the very bad experiences I have had with you as an administrator, I really expected that you would act according to WP guidelines.

As for my appearances on AN/I, the majority have been complaints that I took there myself -- such as the previous one about you. I do not recall many occasions when other users initiated complaints against me on AN/I, although there may have been one or two. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malcom, you were blocked for straying from 3rr, plenty of "grounds" there, edit warring isn't allowed. Then, while blocked, you made a sweeping personal attack on the editors with whom you had edit warred. Plenty of "grounds" there too, personal attacks aren't allowed. If you don't agree with the block, or think you can address the behaviour which led to your block, please put up an unblock request. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I read about civility violations is this:

In extreme cases, even isolated personal attacks may lead to a block for disruption. Legal threats, death threats, and issues of similar severity may result in a block without warning. However, administrators are cautioned that other resolutions are preferable to blocking for less severe situations when it is unclear if the "conduct severely disrupts the project". Recurring attacks are proportionally more likely to be considered "disruption". Blocking for personal attacks should only be done for prevention, not punishment. A block may be warranted if it seems likely that the user will continue using personal attacks.

So, if there was no disruption to the article for what I said here, what was the justification for the block, when WP guidelines specifically say "Blocking for personal attacks should only be done for prevention, not punishment. As you know, there was no disruption to prevent because I as no longer editing the article. Or, if there was disruption from incivility, why did you not include diffs to prove it? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This personal attack was severe and uncalled for. Given you made it while blocked, I saw no hint you would stop making comments like this when your 24 hour block was up, so I lengthened it to a week, to prevent you from disrupting the project. There was no need to provide the diff because the personal attack was at the end of the post above mine, which I noted. Either way, I have now posted the diff. For the last time, if you wish to disagree with this block, or are willing to acknowledge and do something about the behaviour which led to this block, please post an unblock request, which will be reviewed by other admins. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are evading my question. As I understand it, the standard for an incivility block is disruption, and there was no disruption; nor is there any indication there ever would have been any disruption. If you think there was, why did you not supply a diff showing that disruption had, indeed, occurred?

In extreme cases, even isolated personal attacks may lead to a block for disruption. Legal threats, death threats, and issues of similar severity may result in a block without warning. However, administrators are cautioned that other resolutions are preferable to blocking for less severe situations when it is unclear if the "conduct severely disrupts the project". Recurring attacks are proportionally more likely to be considered "disruption". Blocking for personal attacks should only be done for prevention, not punishment. A block may be warranted if it seems likely that the user will continue using personal attacks.[3]

Where did the disruption occure? Show me the justification for your block. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for the unblock requests, they amount to nothing better than a letter to Santa Clause and are a wast of time. The process seems to exist to give blocked users the feeling of recourse...without an actually of recourse. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR?

Gwen Gale, reviewing the edits at the article [4], I can not find where I violated 3RR. Could you take another look at that? I see 3 reverts that I made. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Listed below your 2nd unblock request. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Summery

1. I was given a 24 hour block by Gwen Gale for violating 3RR, even though I had only three reverts.

2. Feeling p.o.'d, I made a negative comment about some of the other editors of the article, saying "...they are mostly schmucks, creeps, and liars. No one can live in this world, or wiki-world, without dealing with schmucks, creeps, and liars." Gwen Gale, instead of asking me to refactor my comments, extended the block to one week.

3. A couple of days later, after I got around to checking the block guidelines for civility violations, I pointed out to Gwen Gale, that incivility guidelines recommend against blocking as punishment.

In extreme cases, even isolated personal attacks may lead to a block for disruption. Legal threats, death threats, and issues of similar severity may result in a block without warning. However, administrators are cautioned that other resolutions are preferable to blocking for less severe situations when it is unclear if the "conduct severely disrupts the project". Recurring attacks are proportionally more likely to be considered "disruption". Blocking for personal attacks should only be done for prevention, not punishment. A block may be warranted if it seems likely that the user will continue using personal attacks.[5]

There is no need to protect the article from disruption because I have already said that I do not intend to continue editing the article. I had taken it off my with list. (In fact I have removed all articles involving elements of the Israel/Palestine dispute from my watch list, and will not be editing those articles in the future.) The only incivility was on my talk page, not the article talk page, there seems to have been no actual disruption, and there was never any complaint from the other editors.

4. I said I could use a wiki-break anyhow -- which was true enough, although I am unhappy with the way I got the break. I feel the whole matter was treated excessively.

5. I asked for a review of the block, but the administrator, fvw, seems to have been on his tough guy mode that night, and declined (it seems) without serious consideration.

Perhaps Gwen Gale found my comment about some other editors unwelcome. But I was p.o.'d, and still feel that the article was gang raped by editors who had a POV they were pushing. Anyone who wants can compare present version of the article [6], with the version I tried to defend, and decide for themselves which is more NPOV (not to mention comprehensible). Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Kwork2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I just took a look at the guidelines (something rare for me), and the block seems to have been imposed as punishment -- which is not allowed: ::

In extreme cases, even isolated personal attacks may lead to a block for disruption. Legal threats, death threats, and issues of similar severity may result in a block without warning. However, administrators are cautioned that other resolutions are preferable to blocking for less severe situations when it is unclear if the "conduct severely disrupts the project". Recurring attacks are proportionally more likely to be considered "disruption". Blocking for personal attacks should only be done for prevention, not punishment. A block may be warranted if it seems likely that the user will continue using personal attacks.[7]

:There is no reason to think there is a need to protect the article from my disruption because I have already said that I do not intend to bother with the article. Since the only incivility was on my talk page, and not the article talk page. If my explanation seems unclear (a frequent complaint), ask and I will try to clarify. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

below you state to be happy with the block, so you're either trolling or not complaining; either way, a review is unnecessary. --fvw* 22:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

Well isn't that an intelligent comment. Fvw, I am happy to have a wiki-break. But why should I be happy that, once again, Gwen Gale has blocked me for non-existence grounds. If it is not according to guidelines it should be overturned, if you happen to think I am nice or not. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Kwork2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

1. I was given a 24 hour block by Gwen Gale for violating 3RR, even though I had only three reverts.

2. Feeling p.o.'d, I made a negative comment about some of the other editors of the article, saying "...they are mostly schmucks, creeps, and liars. No one can live in this world, or wiki-world, without dealing with schmucks, creeps, and liars." Gwen Gale, instead of asking me to refactor my comments, extended the block to one week.

3. A couple of days later, after I got around to checking the block guidelines for civility violations, I pointed out to Gwen Gale, that incivility guidelines recommend against blocking as punishment.

In extreme cases, even isolated personal attacks may lead to a block for disruption. Legal threats, death threats, and issues of similar severity may result in a block without warning. However, administrators are cautioned that other resolutions are preferable to blocking for less severe situations when it is unclear if the "conduct severely disrupts the project". Recurring attacks are proportionally more likely to be considered "disruption". Blocking for personal attacks should only be done for prevention, not punishment. A block may be warranted if it seems likely that the user will continue using personal attacks.[8]

There is no need to protect the article from disruption because I have already said that I do not intend to continue editing the article. I had taken it off my watch list. (In fact I have removed all articles involving elements of the Israel/Palestine dispute from my watch list, and will not be editing those articles in the future.) The only incivility was on my talk page, not the article talk page, there seems to have been no actual disruption, and there was never any complaint from the other editors.

4. I said I could use a wiki-break anyhow -- which was true enough, although I am unhappy with the way I got the break. I feel the whole matter was treated excessively.

5. I asked for a review of the block, but the administrator, fvw, seems to have been on his tough guy mode that night, and declined (it seems) without serious consideration.

Perhaps Gwen Gale found my comment about some other editors unwelcome. But I was p.o.'d, and still feel that the article was gang raped by editors who had a POV they were pushing. Anyone who wants can compare present version of the article [9], with the version I tried to defend, and decide for themselves which is more NPOV (not to mention comprehensible).

Decline reason:

Try not using the term "gang raped" to describe other editors and other admins may actual consider it. There's a talk page and dispute resolution, revert warring is not appropriate. I think I'm being generous by not further extending this block. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

You made four reverts in 20 hours, 29 minutes (24 hour block):

• fourth rv - 19:16, 17 January 2009
• third rv - 18:03, 17 January 2009
• second rv - 13:17, 17 January 2009
• first rv - 22:47, 16 January 2009

This is the sweeping personal attack you made while blocked (lengthened to one week). Gwen Gale (talk) 18:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And today, in your 2nd unblock request, you say the article was "gang raped" by the other editors. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Gwen Gale, I said the same, previously, thing on 19 January 2009 [10], and at that time, in your reply, you made no objection to the phrase [11], but only referred again to your previous objection. If there was a problem with the phrase, it would have been more helpful if you said so then. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. NB: This revert [12] was over a disputed sentence that I removed as redundant. The other three reverts were over a rewrite of the entire lead by Arimareiji that were unbalanced additions. The first revert, and the following three were separate issues, and occurred on different days. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Replying to your added comment) They were all reverts. Edit warring isn't allowed, 4 reverts in 24 hours strays across the bright line of WP:3rr and is blockable. You don't seem to understand 3rr yet, either, which I think is also kind of worrisome (see below). Gwen Gale (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had already lengthened your block to a week for personal attacks. That added comment of yours was one more reason why I was unwilling to unblock you. If you don't understand by now that calling the edits of good faith editors "gang rape" isn't allowed under three policies (WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF), then you will stay blocked until your behaviour shows you do understand. You are carrying on the same wikilawyering and lack of acknowledgement that has kept you blocked. You are very close to having your block extended even further. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To the reviewing admin: Given Malcom's lack of meaningful acknowledgement as to the behaviour for which he was blocked, along with even further ongoing personal attacks while blocked, I'd support either keeping the block as it is, or lengthening the block to 10 days. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm keeping it but I would support an extension if a third request (or just further conversation) is similar. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen Gale, thanks for finally clarifying the 3RR block. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have done enough to justify my value to WP. But that does not mean that I intend to stay. I had considered the possibility that it would be enough to drop editing of battleground articles, but by yesterday it was clear to me that any attempt to continue editing editing WP would be a waste of time, and not helpful to me or other users. So when the block is expired, I will wrap up just a few small matters that still need attention (none of them contentious) and then stop.

To repeat, I have decided that is time for me to leave WP; and, therefore, I will be involve in no further wiki-disputes.

Salve a tutti, Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to be unblocked now? I will unblock you, if you make the three following promises and statements:

• I have read and understand Wikipedia's policy on edit warring along with the 3rr policy and will follow both policies when editing on this website. I will not edit war.

• I have read and understand Wikipedia's policies on personal attacks, civility and assuming good faith and will follow these three policies when editing on this website. I will not make personal attacks, I will be civil at all times and I will assume the good faith of other editors in the way outlined by the policy page.

• If I get into a content or other dispute, I will patiently follow the dispute resolution process.

All this is policy, arrived at through the wide consensus of Wikipedia editors. If you can't follow Wikipedia policy, you won't be allowed to edit this private website, which is mostly run by volunteers. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained my intent, above, as clearly as I know how. Thank you for your kind offer, but I see no reason why I should make promises not require of other WP users. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked users are very often asked to promise to follow policy as a condition for unblocking. Many agree to this and are unblocked. Since you don't want to agree to follow Wikipedia policy, I'm now thinking about lengthening your block to indefinite, until such time that you do agree. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen, at this point you should ask some other admin to take that action if you feel it is required. Looie496 (talk) 18:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to block Malcom, I want to unblock Malcom. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen, i just noticed this page, I am not at all sure the material cited counts as a personal attack, and I therefore think the week block for violating NPA unwarranted, and, I have therefore removed it. It named no editors. it was a general comment in very harsh language to be sure, about the general behavior of some people, on and off Wiki. It is undeniable that there are a few people meeting those specifications in the RW, and , frankly, here as well. To be sure, one could if one wanted to assume that these are the specific editors Malcolm has been reverting, but I instead interpret it a general term for those whom he is annoyed with, which seem to be quite a number of people. As Malcolm points out, it was made on his own talk page, where greater leniency is allowed. It is absolutely not the kind of attack that warrants a block without warning. The appropriate thing to have done at that point would have been to issue one.

On the other hand: the remark was not a good one to have made anywhere, there is a rather long block history in a short time, there is a pattern of edit warring, and his requests for removal of it have been done in such a manner that did not encourage people to have confidence in his subsequent behavior.

My deciding point is, that as Looie said, you seem to have gotten into a personal test of wills about him. The threat to extend the block for not cooperating with you when there was no specific violation was not appropriate. Therefore, you should take no action of any kind whatsoever in respect to him.

Now, Malcolm: I don't think it usually helpful to require prior agreement on a set of conditions--it is more likely to annoy people than calm them down. I don't want to set prior conditions, for I think it is not usually helpful to require prior agreement on a set of general conditions--it is more likely to annoy people than calm them down. In any case, the perfectly reasonable conditions Gwen set actually do apply to all editors always. I expect you no avoid anything that might be construed as a personal attack; this is best done by checking what you write before posting it, and if it is directed towards an individual, recast it so it refers to the edit or the article instead, while also removing all words stronger than "incorrect" as a characterization of anything. And the only practical way you will be able to avoid violating 3rr again is to avoid reverting altogether. Discuss the matter on the talk page instead. I suggest further, that you not concentrate of the exact wording of specific points in controversial articles--such disputes are rarely productive. The best thing to do with a difficult article, is usually to find some additional indisputably good sources.

You now have a choice: if you do mean to stop editing, you can stop. If you want to contribute peacefully, you can. Or, if you contribute in the manner you have been doing, you will receiver longer blocks, soon quite likely indefinite. IO won;t hesitate to do it myself. DGG (talk) 17:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]