Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct disputes archive/Wetman

First invited to "weigh-in" against me by Llywrch in November 2003 he immediately belittled my good-faith editing offering advice on how to distract my little brain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wetman#Concerning_Tiresome_Behavior now posts warning messages against almost anything I contribute to. I try Wiki policy and Wikiquette but he promotes me as a "troll" to other users. The bones of contention seem to be in any article i write but specifically based upon disagreement with the existence of any evidence that may support the legitimate Jewish tradition that so-called "Shemites" were originally an eastern people of whom some settled amidst speakers of what are now called Afro-Asiatic languages. It seems the respect for religious (perhaps not just Jewish) traditions is annoying for him particularly if in conflict with the fact that certain Protestant views which have been found to be without any scientific basis. Is is so unbelieveable that nations might preserve 'certain' traditions which may become backed up as having some historical accuracy as science progresses? The accusation is that I try to synthesize biblical traditions with historical evidence any time I try to clarify historical data and add sections or links about Biblical perspectives which happen not to be in contrast to the historical data. The fact that I have also clarified pages erroneously linking to biblical figures is overlooked. Following in the line of earlier prejudices against User:Yeti and User:Levzur (which instead of attempting to understand their cultural positions and bring them round gently, soon rubbed the latter the wrong way leading into conflict with User:RickK) he has now accused me of being involved in some kind of nationalist Urrecht movement (I cannot imagine what the details of this might be).Zestauferov 10:02, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * An excruciatingly careful rewrite of Habiru is now being assembled by User:Benwbrum/Hapiru. My record speaks for itself; so does User:Zestauferov's. A troll is a person whose primary interest is in creating dissention and attracting attention. A clever troll adds just enough content not to be banned. I will not encourage neurotic needs for aggrievement further. Wetman 00:45, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Is calling me neurotic in line with Wikiquette? Well I would like to invite people to offer me constructive feed-back on my entries to see if I can do something to deflect this accusation. I thought a Troll is a monster that sits under a bridge and does not allow anyone to cross. Rather like someone who reverts any edits made to a page which they have written.Zestauferov 14:52, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)