User talk:Brendon111/Archive 1

Welcome to Wikipedia, Brendon111
Hello, Brendon111, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.
 * Please sign your name on talk pages, by using four tildes ( ~ ). This will automatically produce your username and the date, and helps to identify who said what and when. Please do not sign any edit that is not on a talk page.
 * Check out some of these pages:
 * Introduction to Wikipedia | Tutorial
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia | Cheatsheet of WikiCode


 * If you have a question that is not one of the frequently asked questions below, check out Questions, [ ask me on my talk page], or click the button below. Happy editing and again, welcome! AshLin (talk) 12:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

{{Hidden|style=width: 50%;|contentstyle=text-align: left;|1=How do I create citations?|2=#Do a search on Google or your preferred search engine for the subject of the Wikipedia article that you want to create a citation for. 
 * 1) Find a website that supports the claim you are trying to find a citation for.
 * 2) In a new tab/window, go to the citation generator, click on the 'An arbitrary website' bubble, and fill out as many fields as you can about the website you just found.
 * 3) Click the 'Get reference wiki text' button.
 * 4) Highlight, and then copy (Ctrl+C or Apple+C), the resulting text (it will be something like, copy the whole thing).
 * 5) In the Wikipedia article, after the claim you found a citation for, paste (Ctrl+V or Apple+V) the text you copied.
 * 6) If the article does not have a References or Notes section (or the like), add this to the bottom of the page, but above the External Links section and the categories:

Your signature is an atrocity
Please change it, surely I am not the only editor annoyed by it. Austen Frazier (talk) 06:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, my over-sensitive sassy (or sissy?) friend (Acfrazier, right?). I've now changed it. One can only hope you like the new face of my signature. If you still don't like it, you could always have a check up. Hahaha!! :) Brendon is   here  12:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the change. It's still a bit eye-catching (which is of course your intent, I'm sure), but definitely less obnoxious. I know not what others may say, but I appreciate the improvement. HuskyHuskie (talk) 18:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your kind feedback. As you might already know, I'm new here. I would like to make new friends here, someone who could explain the rules and regulation of wikipedia without resorting to the use of too much of jargon. Happy editing. :) Brendon is   here  08:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Your Welcome
Not a big deal, but in case you didn't read the reply on my own talk page, I do want to note that I was welcomed a long time ago by SqueakBox when I was using another account... but of course, it is nice to be welcomed again, so thanks for your welcome.--New questions? 06:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, Brendon111! Thank you for your contributions. I am AnkhMorpork and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Questions or type at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Best Wishes ' Ankh '. Morpork  16:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC) Best Wishes ' Ankh '. Morpork  21:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Cheers. Its never too late to be welcomed!
 * You're right. Hahaha!!! Cheers! Brendon is   here  21:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Strange coincidence
Brendon. How is it that you happened to create your account on the very day that the RfC on the Muhammad images started, and then after a handful of edits on other pages for a week you started editing pretty much nothing else but this RfC, and doing so rather extensively? It's a pretty odd coincidence if you ask me, one that a betting man might not believe is a coincidence at all. Are you really a new user?Griswaldo (talk) 04:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is a coincidence. If it's a strange one or not I don't know. I will appreciate if you don't continue a conversation here which was started elsewhere. I don't want to get personal here. Please help me. Thank you! Brendon is   here  07:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm here to improve Wikipedia in whatever little way I can. But aren't you supposed to treat newcomers with kindness and patience (according to WP:NEWCOMER)??? I don't like your attitude. Thirdly, I don't want any dispute with anyone here. This sort of personal attack reeks of your utmost incivility. Hence, I do not want to continue this conversation. Brendon is  here  13:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not start this conversation elsewhere and this is where it belongs. You show up on the day that the RfC starts and quickly turn into a single purpose account, editing that RfC solely. In less than a month you seem to know much more about Wiki formatting than most people who have been here for years - though notably you blunder your way into it (e.g. you original signature) as if you want to suggest that you didn't quite know what you were doing. You also talk about Wikipedia policy as if you have years of experience with it. So what's going on here?Griswaldo (talk) 10:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I don't find your comment polite and it severely lacks good faith. Secondly, as WP:SPA claims, ""many single-purpose accounts turn out to be well-intentioned editors with a niche interest.. for these reasons, experienced editors often scrutinize the editing activities of new editors and single-purpose accounts carefully in a discussion to discern whether they appear to be here to build an encyclopedia (perhaps needing help and advice), or alternatively edit for promotion, advocacy or other unsuitable agendas.""

Best Wishes ' Ankh '. Morpork  15:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Brendon, trotting out WP:AGF is awfully rich for someone who has made several bad faith accusations during the RfC of other editors, me included. How is it that you're so well versed in policy and have been since you first started editing less than a month ago? I've gone over your edits at the RfC and they are some of the most combative and uncivil comments on the entire page. I actually found myself responding to you in kind and had to delete my comment as the sneaking suspicion of being trolled crept into my brain. As a supposed new user you fail the duck test. As a veteran user up to something you pass with flying colors. Real, newbie SPAs (the kind that someone should assume good faith fof) don't show up and at RfCs and other behind the scenes community processes, and they certainly don't show up with an arsenal of policy claims. Why don't you just come clean.Griswaldo (talk) 14:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to mock me? hahahaha!!! Think what you want. Brendon is   here  14:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No mockery just a serious question based on a serious set of observations. You're quacking like a veteran duck. Why is that?Griswaldo (talk) 14:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Children please... Griswaldo, if you feel this account is being used disruptively, the correct procedure is to file a sock report as opposed to exchanging jibes on the Talk page. My advise would be to either assume good faith and stop insinuating foul play, or take definitive action, but not hover somewhere between the two.

Thank you User:AnkhMorpork. This editor (not my favorite) has been harassing me for quite some time now. Brendon is  here  15:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC) Best Wishes ' Ankh '. Morpork  15:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You may find this information useful, in handling this. Here is the sock puppetry policy of which you are both invited to take a look at.
 * It's like a cavalcade of new accounts well versed in policy and wiki-etiquette around here. Go figure.Griswaldo (talk) 15:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I already saw the pages. But thank you very much anyway! I'd definitely like to keep in touch with you (if that's okay with you of course). Brendon is   here  15:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

How to correctly position/indent your posts
Hello Brendon. Here's a link to show you how to correctly position and indent your responses for talk pages Help:Using talk pages. Recently, you added a response above someone else's causing their post which read: "Yes - well put. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)" to be confused as to relating to your later post and not the post it did in fact originally refer to. I'm sure it wasn't your intention. A quick look at the correct protocols will stop that kind of situation from arising again.

Accordingly, I have since moved your post to the correct place under the previous replies that were written earlier. I do suggest you check and indent it correctly so that it replies to the post you intended. Thanks. Veritycheck (talk) 14:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ You're right. I am going to relocate my previous comments. Brendon is  here  15:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait a sec, why did you move my replies to User:Saedon?? Please don't do it again. I know I should have placed by comment to you below matt's second comment. Why did you put it below everything? I don't appreciate this sort of officiousness. Thank you! Brendon is  here  15:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi again. That is why I recommended you check it. It seems you found the right place where you want it. It was confusing. Glad it's sorted out now. Regards Veritycheck (talk) 17:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "It was confusing." — See, you're entitled to your opinion, albeit I don't agree even a bit. Brendon is  here  07:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please remember you initiated this confusion by incorrectly inserting your response above another editor’s reply. Perhaps you did not notice in doing so that you actually created a situation where your comment mistakenly became the focus of agreement by an editor who did not intend it for you. He was addressing the original editor’s comment preceding his before you improperly supplanted his reply with yours. What is more, this editor appears to be against your beliefs, which made the mistake all the more distasteful and misrepresentative.


 * Some might have made a vandalism call on it. However, I went assuming Good Faith and pointed it out to you. If you aren’t happy with where your misplaced replies are moved to, then better acquainting yourself with the correct Talk Page protocol would serve you well and negate the need for other editors needing to second guess where you wanted them. Lashing out at those who have had to move them is equally as misplaced. Next time a simple apology or thanks might be the best response. Regards Veritycheck (talk) 09:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * (of sheer astonishment) "you initiated this confusion by incorrectly inserting your response above another editor’s reply" — You think so I could care less about what your opinion is. It wasn't a confusion. It was indented in such a way that people would have figured it out plus, there was a time-difference. We're not babies here. Furthermore, you didn't even make it explicit on the talk page of the RfC (i.e. no signature or note) that you have refactored my comments, so people could have been misled into thinking that it was the original context of my comments. In any case, you could have waited for my response. It wasn't that big a deal at that time. But, your overbearing refactoring caused confusion because it was improperly applied to an ongoing discussion; an editor like you should take great care to preserve all such discussion and all relevant details to its context. Be aware that not every editor will agree with your refactoring or even of the refactoring concept in general. Don't move my comments again without my consent. I would not like to continue this conversation here. If you think I committed a punishable offense then ask for administrative help. But don't continue this conversation here. It is not going anywhere. I don't want anymore disputes. Brendon is  here  10:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

YzzYzz55
Can you explain me that edit? Your given codes work a) only under windows and b) only in Internet Explorer. mabdul 15:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've tried to explain it on the user's talk-page. Check, if it helps. But, AFAIK, the codes work on internet explorer too. "++e" - "Edit the page" "++p" - "Show Preview""++s" - "save page" I hope this helps.
 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Note:If they don't work try pressing after pressing the keys of code in their proper order.  Brendon is  here  15:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Best Wishes ' Ankh '. Morpork  15:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I can confirm that they work on chrome. Thank you for teaching me these handy tips; is there a page that details these shortcuts?
 * Don't mention it dude. Mac OS X-users must hold (in stead of +), and press access key, I guess. Thanks for your support. I think Wikipedia has a page listing keyboard shortcuts but honestly I seem to have forgotten the link to the page. You can google it though. Update:The page is WP:KB. I hope this helps.  Brendon is  here  16:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, your comment made me reconsider the wordings of my notices. Just curious, why were you scrutinizing my welcome messages anyway? Did we ever converse on Wikipedia? Cheers! Brendon is here  09:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * They are called access keys - and every browser is handling them a bit differently. I use them regularly in my Opera web browser, but I still don't understand your motivation on posting such a notice. mabdul 16:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right. "I use them regularly in my Opera web browser, but I still don't understand your motivation on posting such a notice." - wow! Motivation? I wanted to help a newcomer. Is there a problem? BTW, you may want to learn about assuming good faith, it can come in handy at times. Brendon is  here  16:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, sorry, my comments shouldn't sound offensive, it's all fine, I just wondered that since I saw (in your latest contributions) many welcome templates, but not this hint (except to that user) and wondered why this user. Moreover I wanted to give you an additional hint, that not everybody is using Windows/Internet Explorer and your great hint might not work. I think that access keys are not enough promoted! <b style="font-family:Courier New; display:inline; border:#009 1px dashed; padding:1px 6px 2px 7px; white-space:nowrap; color:#000000; font-size:smaller;">mabdul</b> 08:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In that case, I should clarify that I never took it as an offense.
 * I was "stalking" that user because he edits a page I added accidentally on my watchlist. <span style="font-family:Courier New; display:inline; border:#009 1px dashed; padding:1px 6px 2px 7px; white-space:nowrap; font-size:smaller; color:#000000;">mabdul 11:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Which user, YzzYzz55? How can it be? His contribution page says he has not edited anything so far. I'm confused, sorry. Brendon is  here  11:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Now, I see. You wrote his username wrong. The user is editing SHOP.CA, yes. His name is "Yyzyyz55" not "YzzYzz55". Hahaha!!! Brendon is  here  11:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

See, I just welcomed him. And my view is that we need not demoralise new editors by negative comments. Given enough time and guidance, a hearing editor is likely to become more efficient and productive. Brendon is here  11:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I have nothing against this message: I want to give you only the hint that you shouldn't assume that everybody is using windows/a browser with that shortkeys/combination for access keys. (Although I don't believe that this SPA will produce any productive edits in an other article... We simply have too many SPAs and COI problem at AFC.) <span style="font-family:Courier New; display:inline; border:#009 1px dashed; padding:1px 6px 2px 7px; white-space:nowrap; font-size:smaller; color:#000000;">mabdul 12:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I like your frankness. I really do. But see, as one editor to another, assuming bad faith or any other form of pessimism for that matter, produces more problems than it solves. If I were you, I'd try to refrain from presupposing things. Brendon is  here  12:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

User page gripe
Typography Since you explicitly solicit feedback on your userpage about its design, I would be remiss to not inform you that Comic Sans makes me want to pluck out my eyeballs. I hope you understand that I say this with all respect to you as an editor and a person and I would have been content to keep my opinion to myself were it not solicited. Have a nice day. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay I will change it. But could you suggest another font face? How about "tahoma"? Or the one here?  Brendon is  here  09:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Brendon is  here  09:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

May 2012
Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at User talk:DrAlyLakhani, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage newer editors. Please read NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. S Æ don <sup style="color:#000000;">talk 20:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree. I wasn't the one who reverted his changes. His changes were highly redolent of edit-war (deletion of relevant material, inclusion of unsourced information and more needless changes like modification of the size of letters by adding <tt> </tt> and <tt> </tt> tags) and at least unhelpful and disruptive, thus they were reverted several times in one day by different editors namely, CambridgeBayWeather, you, Singularity42 and Black Kite (all this in Good-Article Muhammad alone). I think, it's not the definition of vandalism that needs to be any stricter, it's us editors. He had already broken the WP:3R rule before I warned him. Thanks to our courteous leniency, he is also making unhelpful edits in the articles like Muhammad al-Mahdi, Hasan ibn Ali. What more do you want for regarding one as a vandal, SÆDON? I'm on your side here, can't you see? I'm sorry, but I don't appreciate your act of removing my final warning tag. It should have been given to him on 1st may. You know, sometimes leniency does more harm than good. Brendon is  here  07:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Vandalism has a very specific definition on WP and anything that doesn't fall under that category is not vandalism. Unhelpful is not vandalism, personal attacks aren't vandalism, disruption per se isn't vandalism (though vandalism is disruptive), edit warring isn't vandalism, etc.  Did you read the link in the message I sent you, WP:NOTVAND?  I have seen more than a couple otherwise productive editors get blocked for incorrectly labeling edits as vandalism, and I'm sure you don't want that to happen to you so please take my advice.  Afterall, there is a reason that we have the specific notvand template that I left on your page.

I like people who are forthright and direct. I like to categorize myself as one of them. I took your comment as a suggestion only. "mislabeling edits as vandalism is problematic." - Your advice is duly noted, albeit I don't think I misidentified anything in this case, and you know that my actions didn't entail a counter-accusatory warning. Like I said, recurring inclusion of minor alteration of facts, information, or reversal of legitimate edits, or additions of plausible-sounding hoaxes may constitute vandalism. Thank you. Brendon is here  08:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If you think that the definition of vandalism should be changed you're welcome to argue that on the WP:VANDALISM talk page but it is a perennial proposal that has never picked up steam and has met fierce opposition. Until such time that the definition is changed you, like the rest of us, must abide.  Since the edits were not vandalism I was absolutely correct in removing your warning tag as a misplaced tag.  If I hadn't done it someone else would have.  There are dozens of warning templates, all of them specific, so please use the correct one next time.   Lastly, please remember to WP:AGF and not to WP:BITE. If you have other questions or need further clarification please don't hesitate to contact me.  S Æ don <sup style="color:#000000;">talk  07:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You maybe right. However, I don't think I "<tt>misidentified</tt>" his vandalism (all of which couldn't have been merely accidental). Recurring inclusion of extreme and unsourced pov-statements, or minor alteration of facts, information, or reversal of legitimate edits, or additions of plausible-sounding hoaxes can constitute a vandalism. "I have seen more than a couple otherwise productive editors get blocked for incorrectly labeling edits as vandalism, and I'm sure you don't want that to happen to you so please take my advice." — Sounds like an oblique threat to me. See, I neither like your tone nor do I understand your attitude towards me. No threats please. I am willing to help Wikipedia just as much as you are. Strictly cautioning an inexperienced editor whose edits are disruptive and unhelpful isn't same as biting newcomers. I don't bite newcomers. I welcome them. I work hard to make this place more enjoyable. But I don't like it when I see an absolutely uncommunicative editor repeatedly making gratuitous edits to several Wikipedia articles, undermining their quality, while ignoring several warnings. I suggest you take a better look at WP:AGF yourself. Brendon is  here  07:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I can assure you that if you find anything resembling a threat in my post you are reading into it, there is advice, sure, but no threat. I have no specific attitude towards you; I am blunt and direct, I state facts and make observations and generally see no need for puffery.  The only message you need to take home from my post is that vandalism has a specific definition and that mislabeling edits as vandalism is problematic. If you have evidence that the editor was perpetuating a hoax then you would be correct in labeling the edits as vandalism, but you need proof of that, not speculation   S Æ don <sup style="color:#000000;">talk  07:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I will repeat, it's not the definition of vandalism that needs to be any stricter IMO, it's us editors. Thank you for your assurance though.
 * You're ignoring missing the first sentence in the policy where it states "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." Deliberate being the operative word here; anything that is not deliberate trying to harm WP is not vandalism by definition.  This is not my opinion, this is a long standing WP tradition and a policy.  It can surely be WP:DE, it can be WP:TE and a dozen other acronyms, but it's not vandalism.   Regarding editors being more strict, you'll likely not find much support for that position, we are a very, very tolerant community - sometimes ridiculously so because most of us believe the pros outweigh the cons and indeed, our policies are structured as such.   S Æ don <sup style="color:#000000;">talk  08:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you really going to cling on to the word deliberate? Wow! Man why are you arguing with me? Haven't I made myself pretty clear already? His attempts were deliberate. If those 20+ edits in Muhammad article alone, which btw required reversals from 4 different well-meaning editors (including you), are not the proof of deliberateness, then what is? Come on! Don't connive at his willful disruption. "anything that is not deliberate trying to harm WP is not vandalism by definition." — This line would have worked if that user hadn't kept on ignoring several warnings that were issued on his user talk-page. Please, don't gloss over this fact.

<P>I see you've done this “ ignoring missing” don't worry, we're all humans. Brendon is here  08:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not "clinging" to anything, it is that very thing that separates vandalism from all other forms of disruptive editing. If you do not believe me that the attempts have to be deliberately made for the express purpose of harming the encyclopedia then you are welcome to place a  template on your talk page to seek confirmation from another editor.  I absolutely, 100% guarantee you that any other experienced editor will tell you the exact same thing.  I will say it one more time, please try to understand the meaning of this sentence: unless an editor is trying to harm the encyclopedia, it is not vandalism.  We have zero reason to think that this editor is trying to harm the encyclopedia.  An editor who harms the encyclopedia but does not intend to harm it is not a vandal.  I've done my editorial duty at this point and you cannot claim that you don't know, so I'm going to leave it at that.  I have explained this concept to dozens of editors over the last few years and never before has it taken me more than 2 posts to do it.   S Æ don <sup style="color:#000000;">talk  09:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "I have explained this concept to dozens of editors over the last few years and never before has it taken me more than 2 posts to do it." - Sincerely, with all due respect, perhaps you're not the best guy who should do the explaining. What do you expect? A disruptive user will describe his work as "attempts deliberately made for the express purpose of harming the encyclopedia" and make it clear to you? This is becoming funny. Brendon is  here  09:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW, We have more than "zero reason" to think that this editor is trying to harm the encyclopedia. Brendon is  here  09:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Thanks a lot for fixing the TOC bug on  our  talk pages. regards

  Ð ℬig  XЯaɣ  23:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC) <br style="clear: both"/>


 * Brendon is here  10:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for the welcome! --אהבה (talk) 22:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, don't mention it. It's fine. So, do you have a question about anything that you wanted to ask? Brendon is  here  09:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Block
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for for your WP:BATTLE mentality, WP:HARASSMENT, and failure to follow the deletion policy, even when it's gently provided to you. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwilkins (talk • contribs)

Unblock Request
And it's better if you don't talk about "guidance". It doesn't sound right coming out of your mouth. Brendon is here  12:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note to reviewing admins: I maintain a watchlist of a wide number of users, including admins. I reviewed an escalating case of WP:BATTLE and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on User:Ron Ritzman's talkpage.  It was escalating enough that I warned this user back off and follow the process: DRV.  He was being guided quite gently.  His response was aggressive, and showed he had no desire to follow Wikipedia policy.  I clearly do not meet the definition WP:INVOLVED as my sole involvement was in an administrative capacity of warning and guiding.  The violations of WP:NPA in the above unblock can be treated as you desire ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 12:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "I clearly do not meet the definition WP:INVOLVED as my sole involvement was in an administrative capacity of warning and guiding." - The fact is, I was on an Administrator's talk page if he had felt that I was being overly aggressive or harassing him he would have told me so. He didn't, and you assumed that his judgement was impaired. Thus, you blocked me. Not involved? You talked with me. You gave your opinion.
 * "It was escalating enough that I warned this user back off and follow the process" - an abject lie. He didn't even try to alert me. Brendon is  here  19:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "Yes, but in dropping it you gave an edit sumamry which said "SHAME on you griswaldo. Shame on you. Goodbye." Those are just a small sample of the things that I found when I looked into your editing history." - I wonder what are the big samples? Anyway my argument stands, if they were so big offenses, why wasn't I warned? Bwilkins claims he "reviewed an escalating case." Either he reviewed the case with Ron Ritzman or Griswaldo, and even if I grant you that he somehow took everything into account, the question still stands why was I not cautioned?<P>That gives away his predetermined intentions. I didn't know I was being overly or blockably uncivil. My behavior may have been little out of line there but that doesn't justify this punitive and needless block. Blocks are Preventive, not punitive. If he wanted to prevent something he could have politely told me so. Ritzman did but I was already blocked then. Brendon is  here  19:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)