User talk:Sweetpoet: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:29, 2 July 2010

Hello, Sweetpoet. You have new messages at Novaseminary's talk page.
Message added 17:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Reply to your comments on my talk page

Sweetpoet, check my talk page for my reply to your post. Thanks so much! - Ecjmartin (talk) 10:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Giving up on Arius

Sorry, Sweetpoet, but I just don't have the energy or the desire to go toe-to-toe with User 96 anymore. He wants to trash the Arius article; he wants to refer to my objections to his changes as (well, let's not use the term he used; you can see it on the article's talk page if you're interested!); he says my objections lack a single molecule of "substance"--as I said in my last entry entitled "I Quit:" if I cared more about the article and about Arius himself, I would go toe-to-toe with him forever, taking it to wherever in the Wikipedia hierarchy it had to go to put this to rest. But I don't care anymore, and so I've decided to spend my time more profitably doing other things. Arius will be a crap article, a slanted, weasel-worded apology for the man worthy (as I observed in "I Quit") of any Protestant, Mormon or Jehovah's Witness polemicist (nothing against those religions on my end, mind you!). What it will NOT be anymore is a neutral, viable encyclopedia article. I'm sure User 69 will edit the article much further, coverting it into a pro-Arian tract (as he's already done in the intro) that will in the end provide just one more illustration why real academics treat Wikipedia as a sick joke. But you or other editors who may be interested in this subject will have to take up that fight. I'm done. I'm sorry, my friend; you really tried to encourage me, and while we may have disagreed a time or two in the past, I always felt you respected me, and I hope you felt like I always respected you and your opinions (even those I might have disagreed with). There's just no talking to User 69, and I don't have time to waste with that gentleman (or lady) anymore. I appreciated your words of encouragement, and I wish you luck if you or any other editors decide to get involved. Thanks again for everything! Take care, and God bless! - Ecjmartin (talk) 22:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know what you mean... He seems stuck on doing this. I mean, I see his point to some extent, but he's just too blatant, and obviously is NOT "neutral". The word "target" is a loaded word, as you pointed out, and should not really be used right off the bat like that. So I agree with you. As far as uptight academics and their view of "Wikipedia", it's funny in a way, cuz there are many "academics" themselves who edit and create articles on Wikipedia....lol. I do see the problems and neurotic issues with Wikipedia (and have experienced it myself directly more than once), but I also see the good....WITH the bad. It's the biggest online encyclopedia in the world, with many interesting and copious references and citations and pionts that you simply won't find anywhere else. There are mess-ups and warrings and insanities and stressful annoying things to be sure. (I'm moving on soon myself, as I have things to do). But Wikipedia (overall) has more good than bad, I think. Though the bad can be appalling at times. But the "academics" who overly criticize it, and maybe bashing it completely, tend to be uptight and elitist anyway. Wikipedia is useful and even beneficial. Citations and words that can be looked up. If a college won't allow Wikipedia ITSELF as a citation, they can't stop someone from looking at a Wiki article and seeing the article's own citations and footnotes, and references. Sometimes awesome things are there. So it depends. Academics may have elements of truth in their view but it just depends sometimes. As far as this person constantly doing this to the first paragraph of Arius, well I was tempted to revert it myself, but I don't want any trouble or problems right now... (so I can relate to you). And probably some time soon there'll be someone else to undo or change it around. It would be nice if maybe some kind of compromise could be reached somewhere. By the way, did you think to bring this to Admin's attention and get their take on this particular matter? Sweetpoet (talk) 23:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't. I just got into a real knock-down, drag-out slugfest with User 96 a few minutes ago on the Arius talk page, and I ended up really losing my temper and letting myself say some pretty mean-spirited things to him. It was just hard to take, him calling my objections what he did, and saying that they were "lacking in substance," while offering the drivel he offered up there at the end. If his objections had real merit, I'd concede the point readily to him, as I have done with others in the past, but as I told him in my apology, I let myself become the very thing I accused him (rightly or wrongly) of being, and I was wrong to do that. I've spent forty-odd years looking for God, and recently, He found me and showed me the real "way" of living, one that focuses on others and their needs, rather than me and mine--and then I let myself get led by my own pride and temper into this. On the one hand, I feel what I said needed saying, but on the other, I should never have let it get to the place that it did there at the end. I think I'm just going to take a siesta from Wikipedia for a day or two (or more); I need to go back and relearn what an old friend of mine once said: "it's nice to be important (or right), but it's much more important (and right) to be nice." I don't blame you for not wanting to get involved; since I really don't care all that much about Arius or the article anymore, I'm just going to leave the field of combat to him, and go on with life. As I observed to him, I don't think compromise is possible between us, and that's okay by me. It's just not worth fighting over anymore, and it certainly wasn't worth what I lowered myself to this evening. Thanks again for everything, and thanks for talking! - Ecjmartin (talk) 00:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arius Article

I took a look at the Arius article today, and I notice that you've been editing on it with User 69. Though I don't agree with the edits he/she has offered, I do sincerely wish you both well on it (and I sincerely wish you both well in general). I am personally ashamed of some of my comments to User 69; even though I think he/she was out of line in some of what they said, I definitely realize that I, too, was WAY out of line in some of the things I said to him/her. I've decided to wash my hands of the whole thing, and since I figure I may not hear from you anymore after this, I thought I might take this opportunity to express my thanks again for your earlier words of encouragement and support, and wish you (and User 69, whom I will address on his/her talk page) well in the future. Thanks again, and God bless! - Ecjmartin (talk) 03:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I unlinked the Arius article from my watchlist, because I just got tired of looking at the destruction that's taking place with it. I had previously written this long reply to you here, "going off" on User 69 for all the changes he made--but the Lord started talking to me today, and He told me (I believe) that I need to just let it all go. To forgive, and truly forget it all. I don't agree with User 69's changes; I believe the article has become simply a polemical apology for Arius, not a neutral, usable encyclopedia article. I haven't changed my opinion on that in the slightest. But, all my rage and anger against User 69 (which I expressed quite vehemently in the article's talk page!) was wrong, and put me on the wrong side with the Lord, Who said: "love your enemies, and do good to all who despitefully use you." That's very hard for me to do, but I want to at least try to do it here. So I deleted all that stuff, and put this stuff in, instead. If you've already read my earlier entry here, I apologize for putting you through that diatribe against User 69. If not, so much the better. At any event, you've tried to be a voice of reason and sanity in the Arius article, and I deeply applaud your efforts. I just don't want anything to do with it anymore. Thanks again, and God bless! - Ecjmartin (talk) 00:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also section

I agree that a "See also" section would be a worthwhile addition to the Ecumenism article. The trick would be to find some concepts that are related that are not yet linked in the article. Concepts such as Religious pluralism, Universalism, and Syncretism, are similar, but broader, and might be useful in a "See also" section. Sunray (talk) 14:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hello....thank you for writing me. And telling me your point. But this is the thing. While I understand what you're saying, the problem is why is it that many OTHER articles have wiki-links on their "See also" sections THAT ARE ALSO in the body of the article too? In other words, I've seen it, and it IS done anyway, for handier convenience and for quick referral.

Also, that policy thing that you cited (which I appreciate), did NOT DOGMATICALLY say that links in a "See also" section could not be links that were in the main body of the article either. It seemed to be an "it can go either way" situation. NOT a dogmatic "rule" or "policy" per se. But again, will you agree that there are plenty of articles on Wikipedia that have the same wiki inter-links in both the body and the See also?

As to the Ecumenism article, it has NO "See also" section at all, and I, sincerely, felt a need for one, for EASIER access to those links that you mentioned that are in the body. Meaning sometimes there are people who don't read the whole article right away, but skim or peruse parts, and then like to see the "See also" section for other articles related, QUICKLY. Whether those same links are in the body of the article or not. Meaning, IMHO, it depends, and it CAN be done. At least from what I've seen. And again, the Wikipedia policy is not dogmatic on that. And that's all I was saying.

Also, I was curious as to why you just didn't leave the "See also" section that I put there, and maybe (if you thought the links were redundant etc) simply put links there that you thought were maybe better. (By the way, there WAS one term in the "See also" that was NOT a link in the rest of the article, the term "separated brethren". That's not linked at all, in the body of the article. So that probably could have remained in the "See also" section.) But anyway, let me know what you think. thanks... Sweetpoet (talk) 21:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You say that many articles do include links in the "See also" section that are also in the body text. No doubt you are right. You are also correct that the MoS and Guide to Layout are guidelines. However, if you look at featured articles or good articles, you will see that they generally adhere to guidelines. Our task, as editors, is always to collaborate in making the encyclopedia as good as it can be. The problem is that people do come along and add their favorite links, so observance of the guideline gets eroded over time in many articles. Guidelines are, of course, a only guide, rather than an absolute. However, most of the terms that you put in the "See also" section were well described in the article, so I couldn't see much rationale for including them, including "separated brethren," which I believe you also linked.

One of the problems we face with Wikipedia is over-linking. So the guidelines provide direction on how best to handle this. The general rule is link only first use of a term. You will find that most of the best articles adhere to this.

I really appreciate your taking the time to discuss this. That is how the encyclopedia improves, IMO. I would be happy to collaborate with you on adding a useful "See also" section. What did you think of the terms I suggested? Sunray (talk) 21:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's cool. And I had the feeling that it is true that the better and more careful articles do stick to the suggestions more (though they are not absolutes as we both agree). Also, I noticed that you did leave the "separated brethren" that's in the body of the article linked, from what I did, where it wasn't prior....which I do appreciate. But yeah, not all articles HAVE to have a "See also" section, but I guess it's generally nice to have one though. For easier or quicker access and referral. Some extra links. I was a LITTLE surprised that there wasn't one already. I know that not all articles do, but it seems that most (from what I've seen, I could be wrong) do have one. It depends. Anyway, thanks for your help. Sweetpoet (talk) 23:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 35: / Line 35: @@
 :::Yes, it's cool. &nbsp;  And I had the feeling that it is true that the better and more careful articles do stick to the suggestions more (though they are not absolutes as we both agree). &nbsp;   Also, I noticed that you did leave the "separated brethren" that's in the body of the article linked, from what I did, where it wasn't prior....which I do appreciate.  &nbsp;     But yeah, not all articles HAVE to have a "See also" section, but I guess it's generally nice to have one though.&nbsp;    For easier or quicker access and referral.   &nbsp;  Some extra links.   &nbsp;  I was a LITTLE surprised that there wasn't one already.   &nbsp;  I know that not all articles do, but it seems that most (from what I've seen, I could be wrong) do have one.&nbsp;     It depends. &nbsp;  Anyway, thanks for your help. [[User:Sweetpoet|Sweetpoet]] ([[User talk:Sweetpoet#top|talk]]) 23:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
-==3RR warning==
-You are coming close to violating the [[WP:3RR|Three Revert Rule]] at [[Separated brethren]]. Please stop. If you violate the 3RR, you will again be blocked. [[User:Novaseminary|Novaseminary]] ([[User talk:Novaseminary|talk]]) 21:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
-::Well not really, if you carefully look. As I left the point alone about the inappropriate wiki reference.   And I only manually undid your wiki tag thing TWICE.  Not three times.    Whereas YOU actually reverted already about 3 or 4 times!!!!!    This is the problem with you, and it's EXASPERATING......you only see stuff in other people (real or imagined stuff), but NEVER SEE IT IN YOURSELF, EVEN WHERE WITH YOU IT'S ACTUALLY WORSE!!!!  YOU are close to violating the 3RR rule, most likely, and in fact, it looks like you already may have. So should you be blocked? for that? if that's the case, but you don't see me making an issue about your habitual reverts and edit warring.    YOU ALREADY WENT TO 3 REVERTS AND EVEN BEYOND, WHEREAS I ACTUALLY DID NOT YET.   Not actually.  So not sure why you think I'm "close to violating the Three Revert Rule.   Check thyself, man.   For real.
-::For the record, though, I'm being very careful NOT to go beyond 3 reverts in a 24 hour period.    But the question, bro, is, are you?  The talk page is for that stuff....peace [[User:Sweetpoet|Sweetpoet]] ([[User talk:Sweetpoet#top|talk]]) 21:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
-:::Read the definition of "revert" on [[WP:3RR]]. I have not violated the rule (ever, so far as I know); multiple edits in a row are considered one edit. You, on the other hand, have already been blocked for doing so in the past. Manually reverting is still a "revert." [[User:Novaseminary|Novaseminary]] ([[User talk:Novaseminary|talk]]) 22:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
-::::Yes, I KNOW that a manual revert (even partial revert) is considered a "revert".  But as I said, I only did that so far today TWICE....not three times.   And three times is the limit anyway.  You, on the other hand, today, already did actual revert reverts of my stuff at least three times.  My point is that YOU are "close" to violating 3 RR today.   If I am, then you are too.  That was my only point.  But again, if you carefully examine what I did today, I manually reverted only two times.    I edited more than 2 times today, that's true, but those were not reverts, but just adding stuff to improve the article and trying to fix some things already there, per the discussion. I only actually reverted like two times so far.[[User:Sweetpoet|Sweetpoet]] ([[User talk:Sweetpoet#top|talk]]) 22:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
-== Please try to Avoid an Edit War on Nontrinitarianism‎ article ==
-Hi and thanks for your work on Wikipedia. You have undone a few sections that were rewritten by me in the article "Nontrinitarianism‎". These fixes were quality fixes regarding NPOV issues, which I tried to point out in the edit notes. This article is rated as having "Top-importance" so POV violations should be taken very seriously, and in my view the edit notes you gave did not explain why the rewrites needed to be undone. (Simply saying "it's not a POV problem" won't help me understand what your thinking).[[User:Retran|Retran]] ([[User talk:Retran|talk]]) 21:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
-Just some basics regarding religious content: The article is NOT a place to come to an ecclesiastical consensus; per [[WP:NPOV]] regarding religious subjects, the should NOT make use of terminology or phrasing simply because a religious authority feels its vital or important to explaining/promoting their viewpoints.... Basically we need to remember: No original research, Neutral point of view, and Verifiability.[[User:Retran|Retran]] ([[User talk:Retran|talk]]) 21:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
-I am assuming that your previous edits were done in good faith, and that you undertook your string of reversals in good faith. I noticed there was quite a large discussion on the talk page regarding the acceptable terminology and descriptions and you might feel the careful work was bulldozed over. However: NPOV was not taken into consideration in the discussion (or the resulting edits and text of the article), it was a discussion focused on how to please different editors (who each seemed to have varying degrees of passion regarding a certain way of explanation). It seems, since it was not apparent enough with my edit notes, that I will need take the time to explain all this, line-by-line, in the talk page. I appreciate your understanding; this quality issue is extremely important as this is a article rated of Top importance. [[User:Retran|Retran]] ([[User talk:Retran|talk]]) 21:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
-What I would request of you is that you contribute to the discussion that is going to take place; and that you MUST explain specifics when you take issue with NPOV fixes; that is, you will need to counter the points I will bring up in discussion. Thanks for your help and contributions to Wikipedia! [[User:Retran|Retran]] ([[User talk:Retran|talk]]) 21:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
-::Not sure what you're talking about, as I DID "explain" everything I did quite clearly and sufficiently.   Check the Talk Page as well as my edit comments.    Also, you removed whole important parts of various "Christian" groups' descriptions.  With the untrue excuse of "POV".   None of the stuff on the Creation Seventh Day Adventists, JWs, or Oneness, etc was "POV", but simply provable and documented and cited and stated things by the groups themselves.  There was NO "original research" per se. These things have been cited and sourced. But regardless, none of the stuff was really "POV" or biased statements at all.  But simply neutral and documented and objective points. peace... [[User:Sweetpoet|Sweetpoet]] ([[User talk:Sweetpoet#top|talk]]) 21:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
-:::Well, as I will explain on the discussion later on, the edits I made were not done simply as an excuse to remove important information, they were made with the goal of removing POV/quality problems. I certainly feel the content I changed had POV problems. To help you understand my thinking further; I don't feel that the article is a place to include everything a group feels is important. All editors are allowed to include in an article is what is notable to a specific topic (or subtopic as this is). [[User:Retran|Retran]] ([[User talk:Retran|talk]]) 21:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
-:::When content is included in an article that is not verifiable, it can be challenged and removed. Maybe the problem here is also one of Original Research. I see little citations from 3rd parties (esp. in the sections you mentioned), and so that is the basis of my challenging and removing and revising the content I did, whittling it down when I could find to reason to include it (I will detail those reasons for each line in the talk page). IE: I am challenging the basis for how the editors in the article came to conclude certain aspects of beliefs were notable and important to the outside world. The outside world, the common reader, is the standard by which we should measure notability (not what's important to the religion being discussed), and the best way to establish that is using dispassionate experts source material, certainly NOT primary sources published by the religions themselves. I hope this clarifies a bit where I'm coming from. [[User:Retran|Retran]] ([[User talk:Retran|talk]]) 21:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
-== Greek Orthodox Church article ==
-You offered your edits on [[Greek Orthodox Church]] as an example of your POV-policing credentials. I can't find your edits there. What name (or IP address) were you using? Thanks. -- [[User:JALatimer|'''J''']][[Special:Contributions/JALatimer|A]][[User talk:JALatimer|'''Latimer''']] 06:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
-:? Well, I said very clearly that I'm NOT naming the article.   But it was an article where a person inserted stuff that was obviously blatantly pro-Greek Orthodox Church. So I explained the problem to that other editor, and re-worded and fixed his addition, to make it more neutral per WP Policy. I may have gone under an IP address as sometimes I've done, either accidentally (not even knowing I was not signed in) or intentionally. The point though is that I don't tolerate REAL "POV" on any article that I see it in, and I always do something about it...peace. [[User:Sweetpoet|Sweetpoet]] ([[User talk:Sweetpoet#top|talk]]) 07:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
-::From what I can tell by looking back at your contribs and your presence on various talk pages/user talk pages, you seem to have a genuine interest in truth, accuracy, and neutrality; you're passionate about WP and you want to make a positive contribution; but you sometimes let your passions get in the way of cooperating with others, which is such an important and foundational aspect of WP. Frankly, you have a history of being myopic, controversial, confrontational, overly-passionate (why the constant use of all-caps?), deaf to the concerns of others and to the consensus of your fellow editors, and having a sort of my-way-or-the-highway/every-edit-to-my-preferred-text-is-a-personal-attack-on-me attitude toward other editors. May I suggest, speaking as someone who would very much like to be your friend and ally, that you ''calm down''. You don't have to win every argument. Just try to humbly make positive contributions where you can. Always seek points of concord not discord with other editors. ''Listen'' to other editors. Don't get frustrated because WP is not exactly the way ''you'' would like it. As Thomas More said, "You must not abandon the ship in a storm because you cannot control the winds.... What you cannot turn to good, you must at least make as little bad as you can". -- [[User:JALatimer|'''J''']][[Special:Contributions/JALatimer|A]][[User talk:JALatimer|'''Latimer''']] 01:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
-==Our interaction==
-Sweetpoet, per B's recommendation, I plan to have no more personal interaction with you after this post. If we cross paths on an article, so be it. I trust we can keep any disagreements on those article's talk pages (similar to what I requested before [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sweetpoet&diff=367494290&oldid=367368533 here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sweetpoet&diff=367497753&oldid=367497046 here]). Of course I cannot enforce it, but please do not post to my talk page unless you have a problem that is not best addressed on an article's talk page. I will not notify anyone else about you. Leave me alone, and I will do the same. If you will let bygones be bygones, I will. Do not feel like you have to reply to this, but if you do, please do so here, on your talk page. Thank you. [[User:Novaseminary|Novaseminary]] ([[User talk:Novaseminary|talk]]) 23:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
-'''Ok'''...
-I have a 19 inch monitor. The position of the image was really '''terrible''' ! --[[User:Davide41|Davide41]] ([[User talk:Davide41|talk]]) 21:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
-== 3RR report ==
-Please note that I have reported your recent behavior on [[Separated brethren]] to the 3 revert rule notice board [[Wikipedia:3RRNB#User:Sweetpoet_reported_by_User:Novaseminary_.28Result:_.29|here]].  [[User:Novaseminary|Novaseminary]] ([[User talk:Novaseminary|talk]]) 18:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
-:Even after I did what you requested, you still went to the Notice board....
-:you didn't even give me a chance....    What's with you?  I removed the word "mainstream" BEFORE I even knew you went to "notice board".   See Talk. [[User:Sweetpoet|Sweetpoet]] ([[User talk:Sweetpoet#top|talk]]) 18:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
-::Your actions speak for themselves. Please make any additional comments on the notice baord if related to the report or on the article talk page if related to the article. [[User:Novaseminary|Novaseminary]] ([[User talk:Novaseminary|talk]]) 18:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
-:::You got serious issues..... You broke your word.  Jumped the gun.  And now "B" will be notified. YOUR actions speak for themselves. [[User:Sweetpoet|Sweetpoet]] ([[User talk:Sweetpoet#top|talk]]) 18:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
-* I have closed this report by protecting the article, with a further message for you at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Sweetpoet reported by User:Novaseminary (Result: protected, both warned)]]. Please read and be advised. If you will agree to avoid editing the article itself for a period of two weeks, I would like to unlock it for everyone else. Please let me know here. Regards, - [[User talk:2over0|2/0]] <small>([[Special:Contributions/2over0|cont.]])</small> 20:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
-== Blocked ==
-<div class="user-block"> [[Image:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|40px|left]]  You have been '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing for a short time to prevent further [[WP:DE|disruption]] caused by your engagement in an [[WP:EDITWAR|edit war]]. During a dispute, you should first try to [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|discuss controversial changes]] and seek [[WP:CON|consensus]]. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request [[WP:PP|page protection]]. If you would like to be unblocked, you may [[Wikipedia:Appealing a block|appeal this block]] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --><nowiki>{{</nowiki>unblock|''your reason here''<nowiki>}}</nowiki><!-- Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --> below. - [[User talk:2over0|2/0]] <small>([[Special:Contributions/2over0|cont.]])</small> 03:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)</div>{{z9}}<!-- Template:uw-ewblock -->
-Hard on my warning against [[WP:edit warring|edit warring]] (including explicit mention that [[WP:3RR]] is a bright line, not an entitlement) and the inadvisability of inappropriately personalizing disputes, you make more [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]] and promise to edit war indefinitely into the future. Please do not do that. - [[User talk:2over0|2/0]] <small>([[Special:Contributions/2over0|cont.]])</small> 03:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
-:whatever....I did NOT say I would edit war, in fact I said I would be careful NOT to actually edit war, but to simply place a word that belongs in the article, that Nova keeps having issues with.   Are you saying that I don't have the right in the "future" to ever put in anything simply cuz Nova would object?     My hands would have to be tied, you're saying??
-:I don't like how you jumped the gun and twisted what I said around, where I specifically said I would NOT "edit war", but would not put up with suppression of facts, simply cuz Nova doesn't like them. Also, the "personal attacks" are merely facts about this individual that can be easily looked up. I'm not the only one who doesn't like him or what he does.    Actually at this point I don't care...I'm tired of the insanity.....I have other things to do, and this nonsense is too time-consuming anyway.  For real.   This person Nova made it "personal" long before I did, with his actions.    Again, there are others who feel the same way....  I'm not the only one he's upset with his constant edit warring and disrespect.  So you looking only at me, and misunderstanding my words and my intent.    I was seriously planning to be done with Wikipedia for a long while anyway. (I have other accounts and even other IPs anyway.....but I probably won't even use them, as I don't really care to be wasting time on this stuff, anymore.)  Nova has no business on Wikipedia. He's an insufferable joke.  And I don't care that it's a personal attack. Since I'm blocked anyway, I might as well make it worth it.   He should just get lost from all articles, he adds nothing but aggravation and a barrage of insanity.
-:Again, I'm NOT the only one who's been a victim of his crazy nonsense.    Yet that nutball stays unblocked, yet he is the CAUSE of all the problems.    Interesting.  As I said, whatever.....I contributed a lot to WP in 5 short months (my first edit in Feb 2008 does not count, as that was just playing around....I got serious with WP in February 2010....)....with meaningful additions, corrections, source editing, vandalism removal, grammar correction, section adding, creation of a few articles.....etc.   I never even intended to get into this, it was all an accident when I couldn't find some topics on WP that I thought would be, so I decided to create some articles....and then get caught up in this stuff.   Much to my chagrin.   I have better (for real) things to do.    I don't care that much that I'm blocked......but it's the principle that it's sort of unfair, and you misunderstand (and actually twisted) my words around.....and this maniac (more personal attacks, so I'm making it good) gets off basically scott-free.......EVEN THOUGH I CAN SHOW YOU EXAMPLES OF WHERE HE'S BEEN AN INSUFFERABLE TARD WITH OTHER PEOPLE TOO.    You'll overlook that of course.     Cuz Nova knows how to manipulate WP and WP Admins fairly well, I've noticed.    Though I know that some Admins see his nonsense too.
-:Anyway, again.....to re-iterate.....I did not say I would "edit war" but would simply exercise my rights to put in words in an article, despite Nova's own constant edit warring and neurotic objections to everything.    And I said I would be careful NOT to violate 3RR as well as NOT brazenly "edit war".     Of course you see it as a threat to "edit war" anyway...  Me simply saying I will not stand for whole words to be removed, even if they're accurate, simply because ONE editor does not like it.  [[User:Sweetpoet|Sweetpoet]] ([[User talk:Sweetpoet#top|talk]]) 04:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)