User talk:Willietell/Archives/2015 1

Hounding
Re your edit |here: Since you have previously shown no interest in editing articles about New Zealand history, I presume your revert of my edit was carried out as an act of petulance and to be a nuisance. If I see any more evidence that you are harassing me or following me around to undo work, I will report you to the administrators. Grow up. BlackCab (talk) 04:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Get a grip, why do you assume that you are important enough in my life that I would follow you around. If anyone is hounding anyone it is you hounding me, furthermore I will edit pages on Wikipedia as I choose within the guidelines of the rules set out for editors. Don't make the assumption I would hound you, as you are of little to no importance to me personally. Willietell (talk) 04:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Then please explain then why, out of 4,106,036 articles on Wikipedia, you chose to edit one I have recently edited, on a subject about which you almost certainly know nothing. I am dealing there with an about New Zealand Maoris. I do not need you displaying troll-like behavior as some sort of petty payback for edits at JW pages. I am not hounding you. I am stopping editors inserting jargon and loaded terminology into articles. BlackCab (talk) 04:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * In my personal opinion you are little more than a disruptive editor who takes pleasure in reverting other editors good-faith edits while contributing little of substance to Wikipedia yourself, but then, that's just my opinion, others may feel free to disagree with that assessment. Still, that is the opinion I personally hold. Many times I have noticed you revert edits by editors that may be in need of a slight adjustment, but which provided valuable information, instead of improving on their edit, a tendency which demonstrates a passive-aggressive personality disorder.  I have suggested in the past that you should make efforts to try to be cooperative with other editors, but you choose instead to take a hostile stance in your dealings with editors, thus I am not surprised you have found another " editor who pays scant attention to Wikipedia policies on verification and original research and who is promoting what could be perceived to be a racist attitude in articles"  from your POV. It would be more in line with Wikipedia ideals for you to take your differences with the particular editor to the article talk page and try to reach some sort of consensus instead of reverting the edit without explanation, which could be viewed as a hostile action by the editor on the receiving end of your revert.  you may just find that if you try to "BE NICE" others will likely respond more receptively to your position. But again, that's just my opinion, others may feel differently. Willietell (talk) 04:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Not bad coming from an editor whose first significant effort at Wikipedia was to attempt to have the well-researched, well-written and comprehensively sourced Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs article deleted because he just didn't like it and quickly found himself reported for disruptive editing and then blocked by admins. Thanks for your pop-psychology assessment. BlackCab (talk) 05:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I was about to post pretty much the same thing. Willietell, I don't know what website you and BlackCab post on where it's him/her who is disruptive but it's certainly not Wikipedia.   Sædon talk  05:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Blackcab is an online bully, who abuses his position by using every excuse to make articles as anti-Jehovah's Witness as possible. He does this under the guise of being "objection" (airquotes) while being anything but. --Standforder (talk) 00:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It's obvious blackcab's real mission = his/her anti-Jehovah Witness agenda and no sincere regard for original research. --Standforder (talk) 00:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Willietell, come on Creatiwiki.