User talk:2602:306:CCE0:8550:D424:64A0:7B5C:A6E5

Blocked

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Ian.thomson (talk) 19:17, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Personal attacks are, by definition, about you as a person. They're not simply about your chosen behavior or about how (un)reasonable your arguments are, which are what everyone has been commenting on. You do not get to behave in an uncivil manner, then use WP:NPA as a shield when anyone points out problems with your chosen behavior. You don't get to use WP:CIVIL as a weapon to force others to agree with you. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:17, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

You can't accept the truth can you? I see the kinda person you all....you can attack people yourself but they are not allowed to defend themself! Stupid idiot!2602:306:CCE0:8550:D424:64A0:7B5C:A6E5 (talk) 20:35, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

You came here with a combative attitude, assumed that everyone is out to get you, took any disagreement as an insult, and treated any request for you to behave differently as an attack. That's not misbehavior on our part. You're free to choose to behave like an adult at any time. I'm not even going to expect you to apologize or anything, but I'd be willing to try to give you a second chance if you make it clear that you plan to:

• approach others with the assumption of good faith
• quit being overly sensitive, quit treating any disagreement as an assault on your person
• start into account how your words will be perceived by others
• quit making the same arguments when they are dismissed, but instead either understand that the argument was flawed or else try to improve it by addressing the problems pointed out with them

Ian.thomson (talk) 20:48, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

No, that is not the least bit true! It was NEVER my intent to be “combative”. Did you see all the rude crap that was said to me? Am I not allowed to respond? Maybe I have a short temper but if you knew how I have been treated MY ENTIRE LIFE you would too!

You want me to “approach others with the assumption of good faith” & “quit being overly sensitive, quit treating any disagreement as an assault on your person” but you aren’t going do anything about how I have been treated unjustly? That make you no different than anybody else! People owe ME an apology LONG BEFORE me apologizing for anything!

I make VERY VAILD POINTS I STAND BY that 1,000% so I am NOT going to “quit making the same arguments when they are dismissed, but instead either understand that the argument was flawed or else try to improve it by addressing the problems pointed out with them” & that is NEVER going to change! You need to ACCEPT THE FACTS that I am right!2602:306:CCE0:8550:D424:64A0:7B5C:A6E5 (talk) 21:13, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the quotes that you had to cherry-pick out of context to present as "attacks," shows that at no point did you bother to assume good faith, nor consider that maybe you'd have to modify your argument (or at least its phrasing) for them to work, or consider that people are as free to disagree with your arguments as you are free to disagree with theirs.

You're only giving the impression that you are not here to contribute constructively, but to bully others into agreeing with you by holding everyone else above and beyond standards you refuse to let anyone apply to you. This is your chance before I revoke talk page access. You can choose to not respond instead of throwing another tantrum. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Since you decided to respond to that with a (now removed) personal attack, I've revoked talk page access. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:38, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

---