MilkweedPods
About your baseless accusations
editIt's obvious that you feel you've had a bad experience on Wikipedia. Yet, rather than looking at the totality of your experience, you've lashed out at one single editor and assigned all blame for your experience to that editor. If you were being fair, you would see that that editor's actions have been no different than those of other editors. If you were being fair, you would have looked at all of the edits of the editor you blame, and not just cherry-picked ones you didn't like. If you were being fair, you would also have looked at how your own actions may have contributed to your experience. Instead, you have refused to take responsibility for your own editing, have taken all constructive feedback as personal affronts, and have made scurrilous and baseless accusations against another editor.
Let's examine the evidence.
You obviously think I'm out to get you. If that's so, then why did I so strenuously support you here, and further support you here, and here, and here, and here? You might also ask yourself why I didn't weigh in on the Albert F. Gallun deletion discussion. Hint: It's because I didn't want to appear to be "against" you (even though I thought the article should have been deleted).
Perhaps you think you're the only one whose work I exercise my blue pencil on. Sorry, you're not that special. Check out these: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Or perhaps you think you're the only one who has received a warning from me. Guess again: [5], [6], [7].
You have accused me of the crime of editing your work within 8 minutes of it being submitted. But others have done the same thing and you haven't accused them of wikistalking: [8] (< 1 min), [9] (3 min), [10] (14 min), [11] (11 min), [12] (3 min), [13] (9 min), [14] (1 min), [15] (1 min), [16] (5 min), [17] (13 min), [18] (17 min), [19] (8 min), [20] (13 min), [21] (6 min), [22] (9 min), [23] (1 min), [24] (1 min), [25] (2 min).
As to "littering" your page with "loud templates", the fact is that, with the exception of the well-deserved sockpuppet templates, I've placed exactly one template on your talk page, a template that uses the words "please" and "thanks" 5 times. If you're talking about templates on articles, well, they aren't your pages. But I guess you just don't understand that. In any case, none of these templates were placed by me: [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34].
In fact, I removed some templates from articles you were working on that were placed there by other editors: [35], [36].
You seem to think that your contributions to Wikipedia are beyond reproach, or at least off limits for other editors. But I fail to see what is wrong with removing unreliable sources or modifying wording that is unreadable. Perhaps you can enlighten me (on your talk page, not mine).
I suggest you get your facts straight before you start defaming other editors and accusing them of stalking you. The fact is that I'm not stalking you; I'm here editing Wikipedia to make it better. The fact is that no one has been more fair-minded with respect to your edits, and has been more willing to give you the benefit of the doubt than I have. Based on your shenanigans, I could easily have recommended that both your accounts be blocked, but I didn't. Once again, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and recommended that you be able to continue editing under one of your accounts.
In all fairness, I'm not the only editor you've treated with such disrespect. Solarra bent over backwards ([37], [38], [39]) to explain some Wikipedia policies to you, and your response was the equivalent of spitting in her face ([40]). Nice one. Didn't anyone ever tell you that it's not a good idea to bite the hand that feeds you?
You act as if you were somehow special and deserved to be free from scrutiny. But you're just another editor. Get over it. And start looking in the mirror at the person who is interfering with your enjoyment of Wikipedia. 32.218.46.36 (talk) 20:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
You attempted to start clean, as you felt that you were being harassed, right? That's why you wrote "good bye." Please read WP:CLEANSTART before reading on. You've read it now, right? Good. You were under a bit of scrutiny, so you should have asked somebody, but you hadn't read WP:CLEANSTART. So you created a new account, but continued to edit the same way and on the same articles. After a clean start, it's best to read up on WP policies, so that you don't attract scrutiny. You should move to different editing spots. You really liked the areas you were editing, but since there's no original research allowed, you can edit anything, as long as you have access to information. An editor did try to help you with citations, but you thought that they were attacking you. I promise you, nobody here is trying to bite you. Read up on WP:CITE to learn more. I realize that you cannot just fix your occasional mistakes, but maybe try to look back at your edits in the "Preview" area and make complete sentences. Please, assume good faith of other editors. Remember, when your links broke down, I offered to help you. I didn't know about WP:CLEANSTART, so I couldn't help you with that; but now I do. Please, just choose one of these current accounts and stick to it. Otherwise, Sock-puppetry could apply. Don't be afraid about your "security and safety"; if you feel afraid, just tell me on my talk page. We're all out to help you and WP, (Waukeshawi? MilkweedPods? I don't know what to call you). Jwoodward48wiki (talk) 21:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)