User talk:Catterick

Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Orwell + FOIA = Wikipedia Nice doing business with you! (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are beneath me, so get used to it!

Very ironic...see here, how pride goeth before the fall! In time, we shall see...more, lol Oh right,mob scene and how the public defender loses and the gelatin mould. You will find that I do notsubmit to ultimatums. Oh, when in doubt...nothing to win, nothing to lose. Thanks for weighing my soul. Nice doing business with you! (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain what was against the rules in pointing out a hostile editor's error (in which case, I accidentally posted that at the wrong editor in question), but I had intended to direct this at the one who tried to hold against me and is now being brought to task by another editor (of course, this was simply another editor I confused him/her with, as there are so many like-minded opponents of Yorkshirian I have been trying to defend him from), specifically one (Yorkshirian) who has also been unfairly targeted, by the one addressed in question, as well as numerous others? It surely cannot be against the rules to advocate somebody's opinion. After all, that is what you are doing for User:Ghmyrtle, an obsessive-compulsive provocateur wherever I turn. As what I had intended by the mistakenly directed message above (which you are indef. banning me for), here is an actual and real circumstance where it is you who is engaged in hypocrisy, by condemning me for advocating Yorkshirian's position on numerous issues (as if there is anything wrong with this), whilst you put forth Ghmyrtle's against me. There are so many abrasive and pushy, tendentious editors violating WP:POINT habitually around here with regards to ethno-political issues (I myself have advanced none of my own in any article, so you're barking up the wrong tree) and you find meet to support this bunch, sacrificing the few with few friends, who simply don't roll with the punches as expected. That's majoritarianism for you, but it doesn't make their animosities any more correct, in their numerical superiority. BTW, you have decided to break WP:CANVAS in support of quite a questionable action taken in this regard, looking for all the lemmings that already oppose Yorkshirian and the ones I sought to moderate in their attacks against Yorkshirian. It is you who should be put under review instead, for marginalising Yorkshirian this way. Thou doth protest too much. What if I was a WP:recent changes patrol member? That's essentially what I was doing with respect to issues affecting Yorkshirian, to protect him from abuse an abuse that you advance in the aforesaid canvassing policy violation to buttress your retaliatory indefinate ban. You consider my replies to Ghmyrtle's and your own as trolling, when it is Ghmyrtle who does the flamebaiting and I predictably bite it, to which you simply jump on a case to suppress me. I will never be manhandled, especially not on the internet. I'll only jump through Ghmyrtle's or your hoops of inflammation if I feel like it. Don't claim you don't worsen the situation. BTW, doesn't"Joowwww" have an offencive user name, ridiculing Jews? Another sign of barking up the wrong tree and enflaming further situations. Since adding this comment, said antisemitic user has been gloating over my banning, which is obviously provocative--you never know what will happen next, all because of his attitude expressed on those Welsh and Cornish article talk pages.A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find this convenient for Ghmyrtle to feel free to revert any and all contributions I made to theRichmondshire article (or any other, I'm certain), whilst I am helpless to put in the hard workUser:Keith D asked for. Time will tell if the examples Ghmyrtle put forth with respect to contributions to Brittany and English people (and others, most plausibly) will be repeated once more, as predictable as he is; it is a tactic his friend User:Snowded used to provoke me when I was blocked before, thinking he was "triumphant", but it is not I who believes in ethnopolitical triumphalism--I have been most adamant in opposing this kind of activism on par with Yorkshirian. If I am to put my own efforts into the mix for the improvement of any article, I do it on my own terms as with anybody else, because this is free labour and time consuming. I won't be pushed or forcefed ultimatums. I already explained that I believed my edits to have been unhelpful on the Richmondshire talk page, in that the alterations presented the article with some containing issues out of proportion to the scope of said article, but all that got was deaf ears, even the alternative format I proposed which was better than what is presently standing. Otherwise, I admitted to breaking no policy in this matter. Admission of imperfection in article structure and presentability and a willingness to right the issues, apparently means nothing to you and others involved. Even-handedness avails me nothing. I have been reading Psalms this past night and find that the passages fit this situation for me, but you probably have no knowledge of what's written there and that would fit this situation for me even more. I have just seen the reply comment Ghmyrtle made to you on his talk page. Yes, his inflammatory comments are easy to trace, as are his attack patterns wherever I choose to edit and he feels like disrupting. Of course, you may continue to feel free to hold me down while emancipating him from any sense of morality or humility when it comes to dealing with other editors. He is now sufficiently emboldened to continue his style of provocation and persecution. What does he have to save face for, if those around him have an equal amount of unscrupulous modus operandi? Therefore, what is the point in any of these discussions with those such as you? You prove time and again, to not have morals and a code of honour. Instead, you operate like cut-throats in the Mafia, with plotting and planning, "offing" your opponents when it serves you. I am more like an angel of the Lord, bringing messages of the law we must abide by. You would "off" the messenger, for that suits you perfectly well. Nothing I state here will amend my dire straits as they exist, so I only offer you a similar ultimatum that St. Joan of Arc did to her persecutors at the kangeroo court which predetermined her fate of burning at the stake. For dramatic effect, watch the 1999 film and see her reply to the character sitting in judgment over her--the very same actor was the one who supervised the drawing and quartering of Mel Gibson's William Wallace at the end of Braveheart. Oh now, you see, I am advancing no political party or ethnic group, so it can't be seen as heroic to simply stand in my own defence. That only makes you convinced I'm guilty beyond any doubt. To be brazen in the face of brazenness is nothing unusual to those with the stomach for it. You will find I am not a coward to internet 'token threats'. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)