User talk:Radicalsubversiv/archive1

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149

Good call on Howard Dean; your phrasing is much clearer. Best, Meelar 06:49, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Civil Society
Sorry to have been abrasive. I am particularly touchy about reverts, and I'm a rabid militia/gun rights advocate, so you got my hair up a bit. Cheers, Sam Spade 01:10, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I wasn't offended. Do check my response on the talk page though. As one of my professors is fond of repeating, calling something civil society or not isn't making a normative judgement, just drawing a categorical distinction. RadicalSubversiv E 01:25, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Jello Biafra
Good research, and a good call based on it, on Talk:Jello Biafra. Separating the exquisitely plausible from the verifiable is crucial, and you've graced us w/ great example of it. Thanks. --Jerzy(t) 15:26, 2004 May 16 (UTC)

reversion
hi, i reverted your last edit to hillary clinton. the edit summary was 'speculative & pov'. i don't mean that you are actively attempting to insert pov, and later wished i could edit the summary. but you can't. what i really objected to was the phrasing 'liability' not 'controversial'. as to speculative, i suppose what i really object to is the whole section. it seems bizarre to dedicate a section about a possible run by someone who has no stated intention of running. Wolfman 02:57, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I disagree. You have a point that the whole section is speculative, but that's hardly grounds to revert my edit in particular. And I stand by my phrasing: the point is not that she necessarily is a liability, but that she could -- indeed almost certainly would -- be seen as one in some circles. If the article is going to cover the presidential speculation (and offer language bordering on POV praise), it ought to make this important point about it. RadicalSubversiv E 06:02, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Putnam
Why did you remove the link? It is not specifically about Putnam, but it deals with the concept he help developed. The World Bank's usage of social capital is directly relevant to Putnam's work. The link does not go where it should because the page is dynamic. The url is different but it is the intended page. -- EDGE


 * The link was already in the social capital article, where it belongs. In fact, I've just corrected it there so it actually goes to the appropriate location. RadicalSubversiv E 20:24, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Category:United States Historians
I've added a note to the talk page of this category. Sorry I misunderstood your intention for the page.-gadfium 01:04, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nader and other candidates
Re your edit summary on Ralph Nader -- I understand the point you're making, and I thought about just deleting all the other candidates, but I had a reason for not doing so. The reason is that I haven't been closely involved in editing that article. It appeared that there was a consensus to leave in the Buchanan reference. I thought best was to mention none, but since others apparently disagreed, second-best was to mention all (at least all others on the ballot in most of the states).

The whole paragraph is still way too POV, in my opinion. Were those candidates marginal because they were excluded or were they excluded because they were marginal? There are elements of both; the latter greatly predominated but the text puts great emphasis on the former. It caters to what I consider the delusional Naderite POV that if only Nader were in the debates, millions of voters would abandon their longtime party allegiances and vote for him. Anyway, unless and until I work up the energy to try to change that, I think the current text (after your edit) is better than what was in place a day ago. JamesMLane 07:00, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank you.
I owe you a debt of gratitude. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 18:47, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Reithy
I have endorsed your summary on the RFC. Also, I've taken a look over United States Libertarian Party and added my hopefully unbiased view of the dispute (hopefully unbiased on the grounds that I'm not American, don't know much about the party, and don't much care about them either!). While Reithy's behaviour has been completely unacceptable, he has drawn attention to a couple of claims in there that I think need to be sourced and cited. Have a look at Talk:United States Libertarian Party and see what you think. &mdash;Stormie 01:16, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Radicalsubversiv, I would be happy to accept your revert if I understood what you objected to. I have decided to state boldly but very honestly exactly what Ron Paul stands for. Wikipedia should not be a place for PR gloss but the truth as best it can be expressed. Reithy 20:00, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will amend as you suggest. They were probably over the top, although I will try to find a source about him being universally loathed on the Hill, it is certainly true from what I understand. Reithy 20:08, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

I have made the amendments, although I notice you think I swept onto the page to vandalize it. That certainly wasn't my intention. I have written up quite a few changes, and some were probably off the mark but the most important ones such as tagging certain of his statements as racist were done deliberately and with some thought and considerable justification. I want the article to be NPOV, which is very difficult when writing about someone controversial and am happy to work with you to make it so. Reithy 20:39, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Radical, from your edit summary you suggest I have a POV problem with the Ron Paul article. I actually don't, I just don't think the article should read like Dr Paul's website promoting him and only pointing to anything positive. I suspect I may have overcompensated and have taken on board specific and constructive suggestions when they've been made (only by you so far!). The practice of libertarian members and supporters of Ron Paul is just to revert without actually addressing the issue of what they were deleting and why. I doubt this is correct practice and I am certain it won't create a better article. Reithy 22:33, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

I have noticed your outrageous and ex parte application for a temporary injunction. Produce evidence of your claims or withdraw them immediately. I have not posted anything that cannot be sourced and defended. I note your previous comment and would be happy to comply with that process if others do. Reithy 22:52, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)


 * In your discussion in the Temporary Injunction section on the Request for Arbitration on Reithy and Chuck F, you have listed libertarian capitalism twice. There have also been edit wars and/or vandalism on libertarian socialism, Libertarian League, Liberal Democratic Party of Australia, Liberal Party of Australia, Liberalism in the United Kingdom, McJob and Arthur Farnsworth.

Tim Eyman
Your revision concerning Initiative 18 was misleading. The initiative was not sponsored by Eyman, so it wasn't his initiative. He didn't start the initiative, plan the initiative, or provide the volunteers to put it on county voters' ballots. That was the jail guards' union. Eyman tried to use it as a way to promote himself, but readers need to know that it wasn't his initiative. The previous text made it sound that way. I did not eliminate the reference to I-18, but I have revised it and added a proper explanation.

Seanorthwest

FYI: Temp injunction in Reithy's ArbCom case
"Both Reithy and Chuck F and any sockpuppets are to edit only on their respective arbcom case. Edits to the mainspace may be reverted on sight."

--mav 20:38, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Naming organisations
Thanks. I joined the discussion at United States Democratic Party and didn't move that page yet. I sincerely think one should use the (English version) official name of organisations with when necesary the country name. Gangulf 21:34, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Willie Horton
You save that article from a fate worse than death, that of becoming blatantly POV. Comments about Dukakis' answer to the Kitty hypothetical from Shaw belong under Dukakis/ own article, and perhaps U.S. presidential election, 1988, not here, where the issue was Dukakis; furlough of Horton and others like him, not his failure to receive the death penalty, which was not even an option. Rlquall 23:16, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the POV pushers have been all over that one, thanks for keeping an eye on it. Ellsworth 21:10, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Politics of the United States
I just noticed you reverted my change to the Organization of American Political Parties section of the above-mentioned page. I was merely changing this to stop an International-English-speaking reader jarring at the sight of the British Labour party being referred to as Labor, as you have it. I don't think the comparison loses anything here, as the point you were making was entirely apolitical. If you prefer, perhaps it would be better to compare the Republicans and the Conservatives.

Incidentally, I would say that the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats in the US is very similar to that between Labour and the Conservatives in the UK - very little indeed. But never mind about that...

your question on arbcom case
I think this answers it from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Reithy

Final decision Due to Reithy being banned and inadequate development of the case against Chuck F this case was closed December 3, 2004. The temporary injunction expires on that date due to closing of the case.


 * The above was posted without signature by User:Chuck F, who is obviously not exactly an impartial commentator on the matter. RadicalSubversiv E 08:55, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * are you saying that fred just posted that there and on my talk page just to be playing games with my head? Chuck F 09:02, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Apologies, I missed that bit. That having been said, the ArbCom as a whole made no ruling on the matter, so I guess this falls in the realm of Fred offering an interpretation on behalf of the committee. As an aside, you're doing a damn good job developing a case against yourself right at the moment. RadicalSubversiv E 09:05, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking about putting the following text through RfC and then a binding poll. I'm trying to see if Chuck can be convinced through said poll (and who knows, maybe we'd lose?) that the community as a whole has a position. Take a look here and let me know what you think. I do have a fairly strong perspective that his edits are POV and bad, but I'm hoping to make some progress so the edit wars can stop. I've been talking a lot with him on IRC about this. --Improv 12:43, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

3RR
What do you think is the best way (read easiest) to find out if an anon has broken the 3RR before? How did you know these anons were aware of it? [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 14:25, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Libertarians in Australia and Chuck_F
I fear that I am partially to blame for this. I live in Australia and to be honest with you the Libertarians aren't known about by about 95-98% of our population. I commented to Chuck_F on IRC that I thought the Libertarians in Australia were the same as the U.S. ones, but my comment is from a position of ignorance (as would be the case for most Australians). That anon, however, may be confusing themselves with the Liberal party of Australia, one of the main Aussie political parties and who currently are in government. They are most definitely capitalist.

Not sure if this helps clarify matters any. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:18, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Flattered
I'm flattered that you think I've been patient about the Chuck/Reithy thing. You've put in a lot of effort to Chuck's RFAR, a task that also requires patience. Sorry I haven't helped out more, I've been busy with school and what-have-you. And at this point I have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for much more of this stuff. So thanks for taking the reins. Rhobite 04:51, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Arbcom formatting
I was under the impression with the new timeline format that each user has a different section per day, I've asked arbcom members about it and will cease editing the page till then Chuck F 20:23, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
 * Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
 * Multi-Licensing Guide
 * Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the " " template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:


 * Option 1
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR
 * Option 2
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace " " with "  ". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Thanks for being so rude at the Talk:Rachel Corrie page -- you really help make the world a better place with snide little comments such as, "I hate to be taking Lir's side". Lirath Q. Pynnor

Please you state your case on talk
Actually... this was how the article was for a long time, I compleatly mis-read an addition and re-added it, and that's why this edit war has started up agian because that anon aol ip won't listen to anything I say at all and just likes to revert me.

Anyway, The section of that article is titled why reasons Libertarians point to such success as(releating to third parties)... Thier placement(as other users besides me have argued on talk) in terms of non-third parties have absoulty nothing to do with that. If you want it to be different you need to change the entire section, not just that sentence, by prefacing that section of the article by saying libertarians claim to be the third largest party and point to success such as, you are also giving a warniing that this is not a netural list, this is what libertarians calim :Chuck F|Chuck F]] 12:40, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Chuck has again broken the three-revert rule on Libertarian Party (United States), and without responding to comment left on his Talk page: 195.92.67.66

Comments from Libertas
I am definitely not Chuck. How do I prove this? Seeing his legacy of destruction, I am insulted I could be so accused. Libertas

I am not Chuck, OK. Nor am I Reithy. Nor am I anyone else. I am just me. I am interested in the topics I have made contributions on, I hope that's OK. Perhaps only people who've been here forever with their own cliques are welcome. I'm not sure what I've done that's so offensive but if there is anything specific, do tell. Libertas

I don't have a monopoly on knowledge but I do know when someone is shafting me! My entry made it very clear it was one of Ron Paul's staff (Norman Singleton) who commented on President Bush. Not Lew Rockwell. Can you at least read the content you are deleting? Libertas

Request for Wikification
Please wikify the phrase cookie cutter campaign, which I have added to to further improve your excellent improvements in the article I started on political consulting. Wikifying that will lead to an article I have authored, which you may wish to add further research to. Zulitz 17:53 December 20, 2004

Quotes from Rep. Mark B. Cohen
I am glad you find entry relevant to the article. The quote came from his blog at phillyblog.com, which is unfortunately down at the current time. It should be revived, and when it is, I will get it to you. Zulitz, December 20, 2004, 21:24 UTC.

January 15 Seattle meetup
Just wanted to let you know we are planning another Seattle meetup on January 15, 2005. We're trying to get a sense of who will attend, so please drop by that page & leave a note. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:49, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

Federal campaign contributions
You say (and may be right for all I know) that corporations are not able to contribute to federal election campaigns. Although individual executives can I assume which is the basis of the list here which demonstrates what I was saying I think Libertas

Why isn't it noteworthy to point out the source of campaign contributions, they are interesting given his voting record which never wavers. Libertas


 * See my reply at Talk:Ron Paul -- discussion should go there. RadicalSubversiv E 02:41, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comments from Chuck about Libertas (and threatening to evade a ban)
Libertar

I find it almost impossible to belive this guy isn't Reithy, he goes and edits the excat same articles that I've had edit-wars with Reithy. and now he's gone and re-added the excat same text from monthes ago that Reithy added, unless he really like's going through edit historys(which he hasn't done on any other subjects). You have any idea on the process to go through to get an admin to check his ip(otherwise, hey When I'm banned, I'm coming back too) - Chuck


 * Replied on your talk page. RadicalSubversiv E 04:41, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Is there any way of confirming this with the IP addresses? I'm having my first encounter with Libertas on Soviet Union; and I'm seeing the same behavior that you note in your arbitration case. Thanks. 172 06:27, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. I've never crossed paths with Chuck or Reithy, so I'm not familiar with the details... Nevertheless, Libertas is really trying my patience on Talk:Soviet Union. 172 06:48, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Radicalsubversiv, I have reason to believe you are in fact 172 and Chuck and Reithy. I require that you be investigated forthwith. Libertas

Edit summary
Hello. Please provide an edit summary. Thanks and happy edits. Hyacinth 16:21, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The specific unsummarized edit I noticed was a minor edit to Cradle Will Rock. Looking at your contributions you commendably use edit summaries most of the time. However, the guideline is "Always fill the summary field." Hyacinth 19:07, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Endemic Left Wing Bias
You are clearly a leftist and I don't have a problem with that. But let's not kid ourselves that you are even-handed in your assessment of Rev Moon citing 172. You aren't. He was trolling me and you were trolling me before I even knew what it meant! That's the bad news. The good news is that I won't be writing on Russia related subjects, at least for a while. I have exposed 172 as a complete academic fraud (he's a full-time researcher or so he says, I hate to think which taxpayer funded sinecure he has) and think that's as close to a victory as I'll have. Check out how many sleepy leftists he's been desperately trying to rouse from their Festivus slumber to help slap me down. What a joke. It is very sad that Soviet nostalgics are determining the content of the Soviet Union article. I'm glad at least the Nazi article seems neutral. Anyway, like every good capitalist, I know when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em. I fold. Good to go out with a small victory though with Rev Moon. I will write on business related and Ron Paul related subjects which I know more about and where Rev Moon citing leftists seem not greatly active. LOL Libertas

Rev Moon thanks you. Libertas

Request for comment
Thank you for you comments. A request for comment is definitely in order, as there seems now to be little hope that we can work to get Soviet Union unprotected amicably... At the same time, I don't think that I should be one of the two users certifying it. It's probably a better to have a user who has been less embroiled in the dispute, such as yourself, filing a request. This makes it more readably apparent that the issue is behavior, not contending POVs. (We're not dealing with a user interested in building a consensus around his proposals but rather turning the page into his personal soapbox... Perhaps another user who has witnessed this spectacle on Talk:Soviet Union will be want to certify it. (So it might be a good idea to propose this to all users interested in the article on the talk page.) If one gets started, I'll sign and help compile evidence. Thanks again. Happy New Year! 172 04:17, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Just a reminder in case... The two of us can't revert History of post-Soviet Russia because of the 3RR. 172 04:21, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, someone else who commented on either page will be good. That up to around 10 people so far. 172 04:32, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(personal attack removed). Just wanted to let you know that I've blocked Libertas for 24 hours for 3RR. If you have concerns about personal attacks, trolling, et cetera, feel free to take them to the arbcomm. Pakaran (ark a pan) 05:54, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes! like the arbcom case stopped Reithy from editing or did anything about this miffed person Chuck F 08:45, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

AOL Users
Radical, recently someone or ones have been following my edits around and reverting people who have disagreed with me.

Normally this would be no bad thing :-)

However, I am minimizing reverting and have already attracted accusations from leftists who populate Soviet Union Stalinist protection league that I am acting improperly using AOL IP's. I do not use AOL, have never used AOL, I have a fixed connection and wouldn't know how to use AOL if it existed where I am which I doubt. I've certainly never seen any ads for it here.

I read in edit histories of the legendary Ron Paul article written by you that Chuck_F and Reithy have used AOL IP's and that you have dealt with them before.

I have had interaction with Chuck but not with Reithy. Is there any way of my establishing whether they have been involved with this? Or anyone else for that matter.

Thanks for your consideration, I think someone is being tricky at my expense. Libertas

Messiah complex?
Sorry I don't get that. The only Messiah I am familiar with is the Reverend Moon, who owns UPI which the incredible 172 cites as a source(!) and was busted for it.

What do you mean a Messiah complex though?

Libertas

Further thoughts on your unsolicited attack on my user page


 * Undergraduate opinion while welcome should be carefully explained so as to not lose reader interest.
 * I am not the Messiah. 172 cites Reverend Moon's media outlets and he claims to be the Messiah, indeed he recently claimed 5 dead US Presidents communicated with him to confirm his Messiah-hood. This makes 172's claim to great scholarship ring rather empty, even by undergraduate standards.
 * I have indeed tangoed.
 * I have not trolled, indeed you have trolled me, following me into articles you have never previously edited.
 * Personal attacks, you mean like the "Messiah Complex" crack you just made, is that what you mean?

Libertas (two post-grad degrees but who's counting)

Please cut me some slack Radical
Regarding Ron Paul, your edit summary says:

(there is no unified mainstream opinion on the subject. if you want to contrast his position with something, offer a specific quote)

I think about it carefully and dig up the perfect counterpoint, which was Giuliani. I put in no commentary, just the quote, exactly as you suggested.

In those circumstances, vendetta editing seems to be going on here. I respect you as an editor, despite your views, but think in this case you are acting arbitrarily and wrongly.

I followed your advice almost to the letter and am left rather disappointed by your vendetta editing.

Can you please carefully consider your actions because I won't accept the spurious reasoning given in your most recent edit.

Libertas

Soviet Union
Why don't you try contributing to the article? Your intervention in its talk page is neither helpful nor welcome. We're here to edit articles not have arguments. You aren't helping. Libertas

Response
What specifically was wrong about what I said. He expressly denied using Marxist sources, implying that I was lying about him. I proved him wrong with one Google search, in response to his challenge. I have tried to put it as diplomatically as possible in the circumstances.

So I note your warning, but it isn't much use without you being specific. Libertas

You cite an example of me referring to some highly abusive words 172 was used in the past. How is this disruptive? Libertas

Wikipedia Justice - My Friendly SUggestion to You
It is clear that many admins use their powers to advance their POV and to punish those they disagree with. I am not saying you do this, in fact, there is ample evidence to the contrary. We've had some good exchanges I think and I hope they continue. I was concerned about the Ron Paul thing, where I followed your advice, which you then seemed to forget, and then reverted me, seemingly automatically...

However, I do not accept that you have any right to block me in any dispute we are having in the Soviet Union article or any other article. You are not a disinterested judge. Your user page indicates a familiarity with "left-wing" issues. We are often on the other side of edits. I don't think it's appropriate for you therefore to block me or take any action against me. I am willing to be judged by impartial peers but I will not accept that you can provide impartiality. I am not familiar with the process but was blocked by Evercat last night for having a disagreement on IRC. He is of similar age and views to you.

So I ask you to heed that warning before exercising your authority. We are all accountable, including you, especially those in authority. If you tell me I'm astray, I will listen and follow the advice. If you use your powers improperly, then I will ensure you are held accountable, as Evercat was. Libertas

I presumed from your tone that you were. You can ignore my plea, but I certainly welcome the advice.Libertas

Please take a look at my cry for help on the administrators' noticeboard. Relief is needed right away. After all, what's the point of even having a body of administrators if a user is allowed to turn an article talk page for attacking a user? There's nothing I can say on the talk page any longer. Most of the page already is mucked up with attempt after attempt to twist my words and work around and make me out to be something that I'm not. I'm tempted to send Jimbo an email resigning my adminship and delete my user page never to come back. 172 10:17, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK. I'll take you up on that. I assume I'm allowed to edit my own remarks? Libertas

This is cruel and unusual punishment. Some of my words offend even myself. Libertas

I don't know... By cleansing his own comments, this will allow the dialogue to be rewritten, and make it easier to cast everyone else as the abusive ones. I mean, I don't get to delete my replies to the provocations, nor do the other users... This seems to be a shift from a strategy of direct aggression to passive aggression. The latter is always harder to deal with on Wikipedia. This allows these kinds of users to win support by playing the victim. But maybe I've grown too cynical after more than two years on Wiki. Let's hope for the best. Thanks for your involvement. 172 11:40, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Radical, I refer you to 172's remarks on the administrator page. I find all of this a bit tiresome, especially the accusation of "passive aggression". WHen I figure out what that is I might be offended. I will persist with removing the irrelevant words from talk, unless you think I should stop. Let me know. Libertas

I'll take it on, and would like you to review it carefully. Libertas

Trolling
All of the images I've uploaded are fair use, if they require tags beyond what I've done, I will put them there. While I'm doing that, I suggest you grow up. Libertas

I commend these words to you:

If you find a copyright infringement

It is not the job of rank-and-file Wikipedians to police every article for possible copyright infringement, but if you suspect one, you should at the very least bring up the issue on that page's talk page. Others can then examine the situation and take action if needed. The most helpful piece of information you can provide is a URL or other reference to what you believe may be the source of the text.

If you "police" every image I've uploaded in the manner you propose, you would be in breach of the above. Again, stop trolling and leave me alone, I have no desire to interact with you further. Libertas

Why Your Trolling is Inappropriate
You are:


 * Constantly reviewing every entry of mine, including those unrelated to your area of interest
 * Following up those investigations with sniping remarks of limited value
 * Upsetting difficult to achieve compromises on controversial articles
 * Engaging in tag-team reverting to avoid the 3RR rule

I have followed your advice from time to time, but will do so no longer. You are a troll. Please go away. Libertas

I understand your formula. I am a troll and can be freely accused of that and a hundred other things. You - while engaging in troll like behaviors - are not a troll and cannot be so accused lest it be a personal attack. You are a troll. Your threats are unwelcome and unworthy. I suggest you follow your own advice. Libertas

24 of Your Last 50 Edits Referred to Me
I again ask you to stop harassing and stalking me. It's creepy, it's unnecessary and politically motivated. Please concentrate on writing neutral articles and leave me alone. Libertas