User talk:68.50.128.120

And it's 1, 2, 3, what are we fighting for...

User talk:Abd – Somehow I’m still deemed in the bad graces of User talk:William M. Connolley, but I’d like to respond here (while it’s on my mind) to your recent posts with User talk:William M. Connolley and User talk:Coppertwig.

(User talk:162.6.97.3 can speak for himself or herself, and I expect will soon enough.)

I believe, Abd, there was some previous attempt to nudge you away from some assumptions. So here’s a push: As sure as Ms. Quick had a previous husband, is as SURE there is ABSOLUTELY NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST involving an IP editor who wanted to note previous marital information. NONE. Zero. Zilch. In particular, your IP geolocate is wrong. (It pains me to state here that for all his/her actions, a particular edit-warrior in this matter did a much better job of sleuthing.)

You have done much good, grasshopper, but obviously NOT on obvious, or ANY, conflict of interest. : )

Next: I think an IP editor’s “skill” had little to play in this psychodrama. An edit warrior played a system that really works (initially) against lowly IP editors. The only skill was to demonstrate, then or now, the discovery and introduction of a fact, albeit a flyspeck notation.

By the way, “skill” should always be defined at Wikipedia as fact-gathering and -offering, not as Wiki politics masquerading as “consensus.”

Who's getting obsessive now?  : )

User talk;Abd - Just read your latest post at Usertalk:Coppertwig.

Again, can't thank you enough for all your help. But...

One, there is no Truth without Verifiability. (Or didn't you sit through all those seasons of The X-Files, too?)

Two, it pains me to offer any defense for a certain adversarial edit-warrior, but a clear reading of that person's user page doesn't suggest any reasonable conflict of interest. Instead, a careful examination of that individual's editing history will demonstrate a censorious nature. This individual likes to remove. Thinks he/she is a cop walking a beat, keeping the riff-raff out, dispensing Wiki-street justice on his/her values of right and wrong.

Just look at how the edit-war began. A simple line was added, and struck, added and struck. The striker didn't take it to the talk page. Didn't raise immediate concerns about sourcing. Go back and read the striker's initial objections. Didn't care if it was a fact, only cared about a proper source when that served his/her deleting ways. Most of the war was never about sourcing. It was about fighting an edit-warrior trying to ignore the truth and assert his/her final-arbiter "taste."

Three, "(b)ehind all this is, I'm sure a human story, even a tragedy..."

A failed marriage and/or divorce - a tragedy? Pretty normal stuff, actually. But, all right, you get a mulligan for that!  : )

Four, um, too much sharing about your own previous marital status!  : )

Five, from all that's occurred, being welcomed to register a Wikipedia account really conjures up Groucho's line about joining a club!  : )

Again, entertaining, diverting? Yes and yes. But fun? Not so much. Where's the joy to be found when the absence of four tildes can get one blocked? IP-editor access works (or should have worked) just fine.

Of course, now there's a perceivable chance that a certain twice-married Public Figure, who is probably savvy about the internet, could infer she has some sort of Wiki-obsessor. (By the way: NO!)

All for one minor edit of a simple fact.

68.50.128.120 (talk) 04:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)