As anyone can see, I explained my positions on the ongoing Sep11 and Enclave disputes. On List of island nations any disputes have settled down. So what is this supposed to be evidence of? On Nagaland the edit summaries prove only that Simonides was rude and refusing to explain himself. On Sep11 my opponent (VeryVerily) didn't say one word on the talk page! So it wasn't me who made no effort to resolve these issues. I will accordingly remove this frivolous RfC after the 48 hours are over. Gzornenplatz 22:09, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC) [comment moved by ugen64 from endorsement area]
I was pretty certain I'd find an RfC on Gzornenplatz, because he was so exceptionally difficult on the Nagaland page (my first encounter with him) that I could perceive it had little to do with disagreement and more to do with his obstinate desire to be in the right - and what do you know...
Yes, I read the comments about me here, and I fully admit to losing patience on occasion with people who make nonsense edits or who do not accept invitations to discussion (particularly since I am not at home and make edits from net cafes and the like) - I'm sorry if I was a little too unpleasant. That said, my long-term contributions will show I usually stay away from political articles, or, having started with some, I go to great lengths to defend any edits I make. I always prefer debate/argument to reverts, and I am not new to that procedure - read my Talk page for a sampling. I also try to stay within the bounds of Wikipedia policy, and try to look at the broader picture (I requested the page protection; I posted about the map at the VP; I told G-platz and Davidcannon to inform themselves and, if they still had objections, to state them on the Talk page) - my issue with the Nagaland article didn't have to do with Nagaland itself, or G-platz, but the incorrect India map which was on display for two days to the general public since it was a bolded article in In The News; I later noticed the incorrect map was used by default, and brought up the topic in the Village Pump - it's understandable why most people outside South Asia think the incorrect map is the right one: it's the most widely disseminated map but only reflects certain foreign policies rather than any objective state of affairs.
But none of this justifies G-platz's repeated reverts or refusal to discuss his objections (till the THIRD revert that prompted the SECOND protection of Nagaland today, AFTER a discussion had begun with Peter O and Davidcannon; the initial antagonism between the latter and myself was quickly defused simply because we bothered to state our opinions.) As I said, his rudeness and pre-emptive reverts had nothing to do with any views, at least none he bothered to explain, and his brusque, repetitive "you first" rebuttals were very immature, irritating and un-Wikipedia-like. I can't comment on his other contributions but I hope he doesn't kill his and everybody else's time in this fashion. -- Simonides 21:14, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The fact that not everyone is saint does not mean that everyone should ignore all the rules. The fact that VeryVerily or anyone has engaged in revert wars is not an excuse for Gzornenplatz to act accordingly. It is not an excuse for ignoring the ongoing discussions, talk pages, established compromises or for offensive personal attacks. [[User:Halibutt| Halibu tt]] 02:27, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
As anyone can see, I explained my positions on the ongoing Sep11 and Enclave disputes. On List of island nations any disputes have settled down. So what is this supposed to be evidence of? On Nagaland the edit summaries prove only that Simonides was rude and refusing to explain himself. On Sep11 my opponent (VeryVerily) didn't say one word on the talk page! So it wasn't me who made no effort to resolve these issues. I will accordingly remove this frivolous RfC after the 48 hours are over. Gzornenplatz 22:09, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC) [comment moved by ugen64 from endorsement area]
I was pretty certain I'd find an RfC on Gzornenplatz, because he was so exceptionally difficult on the Nagaland page (my first encounter with him) that I could perceive it had little to do with disagreement and more to do with his obstinate desire to be in the right - and what do you know...
Yes, I read the comments about me here, and I fully admit to losing patience on occasion with people who make nonsense edits or who do not accept invitations to discussion (particularly since I am not at home and make edits from net cafes and the like) - I'm sorry if I was a little too unpleasant. That said, my long-term contributions will show I usually stay away from political articles, or, having started with some, I go to great lengths to defend any edits I make. I always prefer debate/argument to reverts, and I am not new to that procedure - read my Talk page for a sampling. I also try to stay within the bounds of Wikipedia policy, and try to look at the broader picture (I requested the page protection; I posted about the map at the VP; I told G-platz and Davidcannon to inform themselves and, if they still had objections, to state them on the Talk page) - my issue with the Nagaland article didn't have to do with Nagaland itself, or G-platz, but the incorrect India map which was on display for two days to the general public since it was a bolded article in In The News; I later noticed the incorrect map was used by default, and brought up the topic in the Village Pump - it's understandable why most people outside South Asia think the incorrect map is the right one: it's the most widely disseminated map but only reflects certain foreign policies rather than any objective state of affairs.
But none of this justifies G-platz's repeated reverts or refusal to discuss his objections (till the THIRD revert that prompted the SECOND protection of Nagaland today, AFTER a discussion had begun with Peter O and Davidcannon; the initial antagonism between the latter and myself was quickly defused simply because we bothered to state our opinions.) As I said, his rudeness and pre-emptive reverts had nothing to do with any views, at least none he bothered to explain, and his brusque, repetitive "you first" rebuttals were very immature, irritating and un-Wikipedia-like. I can't comment on his other contributions but I hope he doesn't kill his and everybody else's time in this fashion. -- Simonides 21:14, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The fact that not everyone is saint does not mean that everyone should ignore all the rules. The fact that VeryVerily or anyone has engaged in revert wars is not an excuse for Gzornenplatz to act accordingly. It is not an excuse for ignoring the ongoing discussions, talk pages, established compromises or for offensive personal attacks. [[User:Halibutt| Halibu tt]] 02:27, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)