User talk:The way, the truth, and the light/Homosexual agenda dispute

I created this page to list all the threads associated with this dispute, as posted, omitting only attacks on me.

Disputed addition

On Apr 21, I added the following statement to the article[1]:

It is commonly believed that the gay agenda will lead to acceptance of pederasty.

1st part on my talk page

• There is absolutely no way the statement "It is commonly believed that the gay agenda will lead to the acceptance of pederasty." passes muster with WP:NPOV. You should discuss this on the talk page rather than simply reverting. JuJube 07:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I just did. NPOV requires that we mention all significant views and I could find hundreds of Web pages that mention the allegation. The way, the truth, and the light 07:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I would phrase it "Those who believe in the homosexual agenda commonly believe that yada yada yada..." or some other fashion that does not suggest that the belief is common among everyone. In any case, you're going to have a difficult time even getting that in. Please, just discuss it in the talk page. JuJube 08:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

1st part on Talk:Homosexual agenda

My attempt to insert a statement on this has been repeatedly reverted. Though Wikipedia can't endorse it (NPOV) it is a common belief that the gay agenda is associated with pederasty and it would be POV not to mention that. The way, the truth, and the light 07:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I slightly rephrased it and added it back. It is certainly useful, but I personally don't see how it was POV.--Orthologist 18:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Since you endorsed it, I'll put it back. What you actually added was a duplicate of the previous paragraph; I assume that was a mistake. The way, the truth, and the light 04:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Who believes this? Please cite and attribute this, and remember to avoid weasel words. |Aecis^Brievenbus 13:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced inflammatory/offensive content can be removed immediately, which I've done. Please rephrase and provide a source. Fireplace 13:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not inflammatory or offensive to report that some people associated the homosexual agenda with pederasty. The policy you cite says that immediate removal is justified only if the content is harmful to the page as a whole. Since the purpose of this page is the debate about the homosexual agenda, it does not fall in that category. The way, the truth, and the light 13:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I see that you have put the disputed information back in. I would urge each and every one involved not to engage in edit wars and revert wars. I would advise/suggest that the disputed information be left out until consensus has been reached on its inclusion. And I would also urge editors to cite the sources for this particular assertion. Aecis^Brievenbus 13:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Pause

At this time the statement remained in the article, with the addition of a citation tag and one change in wording by User:Mhking, and would remain there for 4 days.

On Apr 27, the statement was deleted again and I reverted 4 times within a 2-day period.

2nd part on Talk:Homosexual agenda

The pederasty claim is simply common knowledge. You are apparently trying to censor it because of your pro-homosexual POV. True, I haven't found a source I consider reliable for the claim. Nonetheless it's something everyone knows anyway. The way, the truth, and the light 00:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It's nonsense unless you can reference it. Virtually everything is that is unreferenced. Everything that is added to Wikipedia must be referenced in one way or another. This isn't. If it's something that everyone knows anyway, it should be easy to reference, preferably to multiple reliable sources. Moreschi ^Talk 19:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I've read it many times, just not in sources I'd be willing to add to an encyclopedia. The statement 'It's nonsense unless you can reference it.' is nonsense; would you demand a reference for 2 + 2 = 4, or even for acetone being an organic chemical?

Personal experience is the most reliable source of all. The way, the truth, and the light 20:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Try WP:NOR for why your personal experience is completely irrelevant. If you aren't willing to cite your sources for statements that only you seem to agree with, then you shouldn't be surprised when you get reverted. Common knowledge is stuff that it's so laughably easy to reference no one bothers: this is not common knowledge. This is, seemingly, your knowledge. Moreschi ^Talk 20:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

OK. Please realise that I am trying to remain civil discussion here.

First, I do agree this would be better with a citation. If I find a reasonable one, I surely will add it.

Second, personal experience is not the same thing as original research.

Third, a statement is verifiable if it's something any intelligent man can see it for himself. That some people will make a connection between the 'gay agenda' and pederasty is so verifiable, given the history (adequately documented at Pederasty and related articles) of the correlation between male homosexuality and pederastic relationships that are questionably ethical by modern standards.

Fourth, citing sources does not eliminate the need for editorial judgement. Judgements must be made about what sources are reliable, and necessarily an important aspect of such judgements will be whether the editor agrees with that source or not. A few days ago I insisted on removal of material on Casanova's bisexuality from the Casanova article because the source was obvious bullshit, and I could only conclude that because of the falsity of its claims - and when one accuses a man of being homosexual or bisexual, there certainly ought to be reliable evidence.

Fifth, as far as no one else agreeing with me, one editor did - see the edit history. And the rest of you disagreeing can be easily explained by your all being pro-gay activists or sock puppets thereof - such people would be most likely to be interested in this article, anyway.

The way, the truth, and the light 20:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Calling those who disagree with you pro-gay activists or sock puppets thereof isn't being civil. The guidelines are outlined above. Unsourced statements are to be removed. IrishGuy ^talk 20:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It was the most civil thing I could honestly say, given the circumstances. The person that instigated this, User:Fireplace clearly is, looking at his edit history.

See my statement above for what official policy actually says. The way, the truth, and the light 21:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, you are incorrect. The guidelines most assuredly support the removal of the unsourced claims you are inserting. Also, please don't make assumptions about other editors. IrishGuy ^talk 22:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines may allow the removal of such material, but they certainly don't require it: unsourced statement (with tags) in science articles are often left indefinitely. I have the right to make conclusions about other editors - everyone does that, and the edit histories are public. The way, the truth, and the light 23:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The point remains that your unsourced statement was validly removed per guidelines. You may think anything you would like about anyone else in the world...but actually typing such thoughts on Wikipedia is different. Please be civil. IrishGuy ^talk 00:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I have never claimed that it wasn't - I have not called the edits reverting me 'vandalism' or anything similar. I believe that I am remaining civil, and that calling a spade a spade should not be called uncivil.

My addition remained in the article uncontested for 4-5 days after the initial dispute. Then, within 2 days, a total of 7 people align against me. Except for Fireplace, none have any history of editing this or similar articles. 2 of these people used edit summaries that are misleading, claiming that my statement says that homosexuality will lead to pederasty - which is of course not what it says. Except for you, none apparently have read the talk page discussion.

I consider this 'hit-and-run editing' to be insulting, and inappropriate given the nature of wiki and the mutual good faith required to make it work. In addition, it makes me suspect that some of you may have been contacted privately to weigh in on this matter (there's nothing in any of your talk pages) - if I were to do that, it would be deemed disruptive behavior. Please correct me, though, if there's a reason why those suspicions are unfounded. The way, the truth, and the light 12:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been in contact with anyone privately in this regard. This is a frequently vandalized article, and many users have it on their watchlist. Fireplace 13:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess I have to take your word for it right now. It's awfully suspicious, though, for the reasons given above. The way, the truth, and the light 14:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, note that blanking warnings from your talk page (3 links removed) is discouraged. Fireplace 13:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Only one related to this article (and is presently back on my page anyway). The other two were not warnings at all (one was a 3RR message about a different article). The way, the truth, and the light 14:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The links I removed above were to deleted sections of my user talk page.

Warning and following discussion

This warning from User:Nandesuka, an administrator, was given after my 4th and last revert.

If you continue the stale edit war on your admittedly unsourced statements on Homosexual agenda, I will block you for disruption. Please consider this your final warning. Nandesuka 19:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I am distressed at seeing you threaten to block me over this issue. Generally, people are not blocked over editing disputes (except for 3RR). I hardly think that just 4 reverts and 1 warning is enough to justify it. Besides, if I were to revert again at this time, it would just be undone

again - which is the proper way to deal with these things, not blocking one side. That is the very reason why blocks for other than simple vandalism are so deprecated - because it often amounts to taking sides. The way, the truth, and the light 13:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the message you left on my talk page: I am perfectly fine that you are "distressed" that I have warned you to stop your sterile edit war on this issue. That, in fact, was precisely my intention in warning you. I want you to be distressed at the prospect of being blocked, so that you stop edit warring. I see that you are continuing to engage on this issue in the talk page. That's great, and that's exactly what the talk page is for. If you can convince the other editors that this content belongs on the page, then you can have your cake and eat it too. Sometimes, reasonable editors can argue over given points in an article, and a little bit of back and forth is expected. A casual inspection of your edits on that page (as distinguished from the talk page) show that you have gone far beyond reasonable, and are becoming disruptive. So you are now required to stop. Kind regards, Nandesuka 13:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You failed to respond to any of the points I made above. I am trying to continue the discussion on the talk page, yes; that is where it belongs. Decisions on content disputes should be made be the people involved with a particular page, not hit-and-run admins. Your message on my talk page shows that you are failing to assume good faith. As I explained above I do not, and did not even before your warning, intend to continue reverting for the sake of reverting. But your inappropriate threat leaves a cloud hanging over me in regard to that article. While it's true the 3RR policy states that the rule is not an entitlement to revert 3 times every day, there is no evidence that I have treated it as such. I reverted 4 different editors, none of whom made a comment on the talk page; one of them was an anon using an incorrect edit summary. Further there had been 3 other editors who seemed to accept that the information could remain in the article, telling me that I was not alone. The way, the truth, and the light 14:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Exchange with User:Orthologist

This conversation confirmed that Orthologist supported my position in the content dispute, which was not entirely clear because of his editing mistake.

On Apr 21, you made an edit with the summary 're-added information', which duplicated a paragraph (and was reversed). What was your intent here? I assumed it was to re-add my sentence on pederasty, given the edit summary and that that was the only thing under dispute at the time. Can you clarify? The way, the truth, and the light 11:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I was simply trying to rephrase the information so that it didn't sound biased. Policy states that one should use common sense; as the information wasn't libellous or extraordinary, I tried to rephrase it and put it back in.--Orthologist 14:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for backing me up. Just be more careful when editing: [2] was your actual edit. The way, the truth, and the light 14:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sorry for that; I guess my computer is acting weird lately.--Orthologist 14:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

AN/I thread

I regarded the warning above as offensive, and complained on WP:ANI to attempt to get it lifted.

This post is to complain about an administrator, User:Nandesuka. I have informed her on her talk page about this complaint.

Around a week ago, I added an unsourced statement to this article. A few days ago, it was deleted, and I made 4 reverts to this article during a 2-day period. I do not wish to discuss the content dispute here as I believe this is not the appropriate place. Nevertheless, explanations of the situation can be found on the talk pages of me, her, and the article in question.

A neutral observer, User:Orthologist, had this to say [3]:

Policy states that one should use common sense; as the information wasn't libellous or extraordinary, I tried to rephrase it and put it back in.

Then, yesterday, Nandesuka, who had no previous participation with this matter, issued this warning on my user talk page [4]:

If you continue the stale edit war on your admittedly unsourced statements on Homosexual agenda, I will block you for disruption. Please consider this your final warning.

I believe this warning to be improper. It violates policy at least in spirit to block over this, as it is long-established that this is not vandalism and that unilateral blocks are almost always appropriate only for simple vandalism.

Nandesuka has not meaningfully responded to my criticisms of her action.

The warning is an attack on my honor and I request that it be withdrawn. The way, the truth, and the light 22:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

looks like a good warning to me - from a quick skim other editors had already discussed with you in detail why that information was unsuitable. Good move by that admin to stop a possible edit war. --Fredrick day 22:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, this is not meant to be about the content dispute itself. The way, the truth, and the light 22:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You readded the same unsourced information about 10 times. That is edit warring. The warning wasn't abusive. IrishGuy ^talk 22:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I reverted just 4 times after it was deleted, as I said above. For my justification see User talk:Nandesuka. The way, the truth, and the light 22:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

No. Six times you added a link to Pederasty as well as the sentence It is commonly believed that the gay agenda will lead to the acceptance of pederasty. The other four times you merely added the sentence. IrishGuy ^talk 22:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I believed that it was resolved as of Apr 23. I had not received any warnings, and 3 users had endorsed the information's inclusion. That is why I started my complaint with the Apr 27 deletion, after which I made only 4 reverts. The way, the truth, and the light 22:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Who might these 3 users be? Based on the talk page, I am only seeing one, [User:Orthologist|Orthologist]]. My point stands, 10 times you continued to add unsourced information (you even admitted that it was unsourced on the talk page) that was removed by others. How is that not edit warring? IrishGuy ^talk 22:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Two other users edited my statement without removing it, I was counting those in the 3. I did revert 10 times in all, but the two periods should be considered different incidents for the reason I gave above. The way, the truth, and the light 22:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly. One added a citation tag, the other added a tag for weasel words. Neither of those actions would be termed "endorsements". IrishGuy ^talk 01:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

How can you justify re-adding a statement you say yourself is unsourced? Complaining about an admin "attacking your honor" is not going to help you here. JuJube 22:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

As I have said twice now, this is not the place to discuss the disputed content. The way, the truth, and the light 22:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Then you're wasting our time. JuJube 22:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The place to discuss the content of the article is at the article's talk page, where I have just made another reply. The way, the truth, and the light 23:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You can't have it both ways. The warning was related to the content. If we are going to discuss the warning, then we have to discuss the content that led to the warning. If we cannot discuss the content, then we cannot discuss the warning, and this thread shall be closed. ··coe lacan 23:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The reason for having policies is to distinguish arguments over process from arguments over content. I did describe here the actions leading up to the warning, and you are welcome to expand/comment on that. But we are not here to rehash all the argument that should be made on the article talk page. The way, the truth, and the light 01:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This is pedantic. Your complaint is that someone "attacked your honor" for warning you about edit warring against consensus. This could only be a valid complaint if you were not edit warring against consensus. It is already a long-established consensus on Wikipedia that if you are going to add contentious content to an article, it had better be well sourced. You added your unsourced original research and complained here about being warned for it. To investigate your complaint, we must decide whether the warning was a valid one, and the substance of the warning regards disputed content. So you can't divide the process from the content (which is why we have processes regarding content, by the way). In any case, no one here seems to agree with you that we must evaluate this on your terms. I suspect that if I haven't made myself clear to you yet, there's no point in explaining further. ··coelacan 04:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

'Edit warring' is a pejorative term and I prefer to avoid such terms if possible. I never intended to keep reverting forever, and indeed was about to stop when given the warning, as I saw that it wasn't getting anywhere at the time. As far as process versus content, Wikipedia can keep the peace only by dividing the two. It's true that we are having this discussion because of the content, but I never attempted to defend it on this thread. The way, the truth, and the light 12:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict, comment aimed at TW,TT,ATL) Yet it was still unsourced. You were edit warring, adding something that could be deemed to be libellous, and not providing sources. That is disruption. The warning was fair- the fact that the editor was uninvolved is a good sign they were not biased in the matter; it would not be good practice to warn someone which whom you were, at that time, in a content dispute with. J Milburn 22:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I have now blocked TWTTATL for disruption, specifically for his repeated editing of other user's comments on the talk page. Diffs are on the block notice on his talk page. Nandesuka 02:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I endorse this block. If someone disagrees with someone else's edits on a talk page, they should rebut them, not remove them. When the edits are links regarding the editor in question's previous disruptive behavior, that's even more reason not to remove them. And then revert warring over it? Yes, if a block is what it takes to stop that, then block. ··coelacan 04:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not remove edits on the talk page, only edit them without changing the meaning. Please don't make assumptions about whay you don't know yourself. The way, the truth, and the light 12:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you did remove content: see here. You were removing evidence that you blanked warnings. IrishGuy ^talk 15:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

As I explained somewhere else, I was not removing evidence because I admitted that I had done it in the next reply. The way, the truth, and the light 03:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a good block too, she's shown herself to be perfectly willing to waste admin's time on silly nonsense like protecting her honor (I suspect this person's a female... gut feeling). I really don't think anything good's going to come out of this. JuJube 06:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I am male. I would much prefer to be left alone, rather than 'waste admins' time'. Finally, the main part of your post says that complaining about admin actions warrants a block. No comment is needed there. The way, the truth, and the light 12:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Good block, clear disruption after disruptive edit-warring. I would suggest that User:The way, the truth, and the light stays away from Homosexual agenda, because at the moment he's is adding nothing constructive to the article in question, nor to the talk page. Moreschi ^Talk 15:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

3rd part on Talk:Homosexual agenda

Pursuant to the above I reposted on the article talk page for further discussion of the content dispute.

Some more claims about this dispute have been raised at the thread at ANI stemming from this. Since ANI is not the appropriate place, I will respond here.

First, my edit is not in itself a policy violation, and some of my opponents seem to be implying. I think that has been demonstrated by me, and User:Irishguy implicitly accepted it above.

Second, that any editors at all left my information in shows that I am not in a tiny minority on this. The persons that edit homosexuality-related articles are predominantly those with a pro-gay POV, that much is obvious, and are not necessarily representative of a broader consensus. Indeed the very nature of the disputed assertion is such that if a significant number of people agree with it, it is true!

Third, my opponents on this issue have persistently failed to address any of the points I have made in my rebuttals.

The way, the truth, and the light 23:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? When did I "implicitly accept" the validity of your statement? I did no such thing. Furthermore, you are clearly in a tiny minority on this as you were reverted numerous times. Two of the editors you are claiming agree with you actually put citation tags on your unsourced comment. That is far from agreeing with you. IrishGuy ^talk 23:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

In the sentence above starting 'The point remains ...' you granted that concession and said that nonetheless it was valid to remove my statement. I just indicated why my being reverted does not necessarily put me in a 'tiny minority'. I do not disagree with inserting citation tags! Adding tags instead of immediately removing the unsourced statement indicates a belief that it is valid to have in the article. The way, the truth, and the light 23:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I was sidestepping the entire argument about what your comment entailed as I feel it was covered above by multiple other editors. You were edit warring and I was pointing out that policy allows the removal of unsourced statements and therefore you shouldn't have continued to war as it wasn't vandalism. No, adding tags doesn't indicate a belief that the statement has a valid reason to be there. Some editors add tags, others simply remove the statement. Please stop making assumptions about the beliefs and motivations of other editors. IrishGuy ^talk 23:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Adding tags might not mean that, but it certainly could (and should, in my opinion). The way, the truth, and the light 01:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Now, to further address your statements: First policy states Remember that Wikipedia is not a place for expressing your own opinions or for original research. So, yes, your addition was against policy. Second one editor above agreed with you and two added tags (one for needing a citation, the other for use of weasel words). That obviously illustrates that you are in a tiny minority as one agreement hardly makes it a large minority. Third, every single thing you have put forth has been rebutted. Whether or not you choose to accept that fact is up to you. IrishGuy ^talk 23:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

First, I have adequately explained that I did not violate policy. Second, you once again failed to respond to my actual argument about the size of the minority. Your third claim is laughable and I will ignore it. The way, the truth, and the light 01:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The last messages above were removed by User:Nandesuka following her block with the edit summary "removing disruptive trolling".

Talk page edits

I repeatedly attempted to remove the links to deleted sections of my user talk page (as mentioned above) on the article talk page.

Per WP:TALK, don't edit the comments of other users. You did it here and when it was reverted with an edit summary asking you not to do it...you turned around and did it again. Please don't do that. IrishGuy ^talk 00:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed the links because first, they had an incorrect summary, and second, they linked to content I deleted - I don't want anyone seeing that unless they're specifically looking for it. I am allowed to remove attacks without substantively changing the comment, and that's what I did. The way, the truth, and the light 01:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Note that I later retracted my statement about the "incorrect summary".

Block

Following the two threads mentioned above, User:Nandesuka blocked me, using this block summary:

Disruption on Talk:Homosexual agenda after warning.

The "disruption" was removing the links on the talk page.

Further discussion on my talk page

As to the editing those comments, I gave an explanation of my actions above. Now I may be wrong, indeed, but decency requires that my explanation should be listened to and replied to before blocking me. Since I joined Wikipedia under this username I have always observed similar decency, never reverting more than once (excepting vandalism) without giving an explanation.

Even if I am wrong about that, his summary of those links was still incorrect. The first link was summarized as 'edit warring' , which is correct (it was your first warning to me). The third link was labeled '3RR warning on this article' , which is not true. I was never warned for 3RR on Homosexual agenda; the message was about 3RR, yes (actually the second link was, he must have had them swapped in his mind) but it was for a different page (List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts) and it was not a warning, but an informational message to a new user after I had reached 3 reverts (they were fully justified, too).

I also see that you removed my messages on Talk:Homosexual agenda, with an insulting edit summary. This is infinitely worse then what I was blocked for. While I was, in good faith, editing out parts of a message I considered to be attacks (as well as false), being careful to not change the substance of the comment (my removals did not remove the information of my history, because I confirmed it (correctly) in my next response), your edit removed replies for no reason at all. User:Irishguy, though he strongly disagreed with me and was not responding to my actual points, at least (to his credit) continued replying in a civil manner. You, clearly, had no such intent.

Throughout this unfortunate incident I have remained calm and civil. I have always been ready to explain myself at length, and to reply to all rational criticism - and even some that isn't.

The contrast with the behavior of my enemies, especially User:Fireplace and yourself, speaks for itself and I need not elaborate. The way, the truth, and the light 02:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

While I will reserve judgement about whether or not your comments should have been removed, your comments were trolling and quite often rude. You constantly wikilawyered (as above) about whether or not you felt that you were adequately warned. Obviously, you are familiar with the policy so that means you knew what you were doing...and did it anyway. Even when policy is quoted to you, your response boiled down to "I don't think so. It actually means this..." You simply ignored others and repeated the same statements with nothing valid to back it up. Simply your own opinions. You feel that adding a citation tag instead of deleting a sentence means the other editor agreed. That is not the case. Please stop making sweeping generalizations about the motivations of other editors. IrishGuy ^talk 02:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well. Your message contains many distinct statements, and unfortunately we can't reply Usenet-style here, so I'll have to just go one by one. First, you used the term 'trolling' - that term has an accepted definition, and I am certainly not it - I am not intentionally trying to provoke anyone. As for 'rude' I do endeavor not to be unnecessarily offensive; I apologize if my comments seem rude, please know that they don't when I post them. The term 'wikilawyering' makes an unwarranted assumption as to my motive, and is false.

I have never intentionally violated an official policy. My disagreement as to interpretation of policy was honest, and I backed up my claims with argument, which my opponents largely did not. As to repeating myself, I hope I did not repeat myself unless my opponents did. If you think my long statements were repetitive, you didn't read them carefully: they repeated no more than necessary.

The statement about the tags was an overgeneralization - I admitted as much in the comments she deleted. The statement was not really that important, though, and your disputing it seems to me like either argument for the sake of argument, or a double standard - if I am not allowed to assume the editor agreed, you are not allowed to assume the opposite, either. The way, the truth, and the light 03:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately it seems it will have to stop assuming good faith on your part; I tried to. I have now seen that you went back and reverted edits I had made, as if I were a vandal (!). I will not dispute the pederasty article, as you might object to that for the same reasons you did to the edit on 'Homosexual agenda'. But reverting the galaxy articles is clearly stalking, especially given the false edit summaries you used. You (I presume) have no understanding of the reason for those edits and only one person reverted me so you can't claim that I'm a 'tiny minority' there. The way, the truth, and the light 03:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I reverted POV edits, nothing more. The galaxy article was reverted because of the conversation on the talk page. Your argument for inclusion (against the points the other editor made) was: Calling it 'deprecated' was my personal opinion that may not belong in the article. I myself believe that 'Triangulum Galaxy' is the better name. Your personal opinions don't belong on Wikipedia. You have done a fair amount of valuable vandalism reverts, but when you add to articles it is your own personal opinions even in the face of consensus against you. IrishGuy ^talk 03:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That illustrates that you really don't understand the galaxy edits. That statement was not the reason for my edits - it was an offer to retract one sentence of my edit that expressed a personal opinion, while keeping the rest. And, again, one editor against me does not make a 'consensus' against me. The way, the truth, and the light 03:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to clear up the factual dispute: yes, you were given a 3RR notice on homosexual agenda [5]), and you blanked it along with the discussion of the appropriateness of your username (here). I did not "swap them in [my] mind." Nor, by the way, am I your "enemy." Fireplace 07:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I forgot about that one actually; I still would not term it a 'warning'. I guess I was just predisposed to being suspicious of you, for obvious reasons. The way, the truth, and the light 12:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Note also that you blanked another user's comment on your ANI listing (link removed). Fireplace 07:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That was a clear personal attack. The way, the truth, and the light 12:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. People who choose contentious, POV names usually end up being contentious POV pushers. One does indeed have to wonder whether that's what you're turning out to be. I've restored the comment. [6] Be aware that if you don't quit stretching the notion of personal attack to remove legitimate comments, you will find yourself blocked again. ··coelacan 17:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The comment served no purpose but to insult me, which is what I would call a personal attack. For a new user, it may sometimes be useful to correlate their username with their edits. But if you want to see the kind of edits I have made, just look at my edit history, not my username. None of my edits other than this one could be described as POV pushing, and I have stated that I mean to edit mostly science articles, as I have been doing. The way, the truth, and the light 20:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)