Thread:Jdogno7/@comment-1409530-20140531124614/@comment-1409530-20140601033055

"Look at the response to your original post that started this thread.

Of the 4 bulleted points, 3 were why Clark Luthor would not be added.

The last, and least important, was the name issue.

That you cannot remember the other two, that you cannot be bothered to review this thread is beyond belief.": Since you weren't clear that this was what you were referring to, how was I supposed to know?

It cinches a few things though: ◾ You contention that you have learned from your past actions is bunk. ◾ You will repeat yourself here when you block ends and feel perfectly justified in doing so. ◾ Your intrenched mindset makes it worthless to engage with you. You believe you are right and if you repeat yourself long enough others will fall in line. You do not engage in discussion, you rant, you bull through, you deny other's points and that they have been put to you before. ◾ You are unwilling to accept you shortcomings even when you point them out. Based on your own statement, you are not competent to copy edit but you do it any way. ◾ You may mean well, but you are more of a detriment to an active, healthy wiki than an asset. All of the editors are volunteers. They are giving their time to try and improve content, legibility, and accessibility. Yes, that includes copy editing. Bit it should not have to include cleaning up after possessive, zealous editors who keep making the same damn mess, often of the same articles. We have better things to do. ◾ You are not worth the time to try and engage with to explain why edits have been changed or undone. You will not listen. You will not try and work with others. You will not even bother to try and follow along and/or read read the entirety of a post, much less try to understand what is presented to you in plain English. ◾ And to be clear: This is NOT a request for your rebuttal. This is the imprison you have made and confirmed.":

"You contention that you have learned from your past actions is bunk.', wrong!

"You will repeat yourself here when you block ends and feel perfectly justified in doing so.", Repeat what? What specifically?

"Your intrenched mindset makes it worthless to engage with you. You believe you are right and if you repeat yourself long enough others will fall in line. You do not engage in discussion, you rant, you bull through, you deny other's points and that they have been put to you before."; "You believe you are right and if you repeat yourself long enough others will fall in line.", I don't "believe" I "am right" about absolutely everything. I do not "believe" "if" I "repeat myself long enough others will fall in line.". That has certainly not worked in real life and would not necessarily here either; "You do not engage in discussion, you rant, you bull through, you deny other's points and that they have been put to you before.", "You do not engage in discussion,...": How do I not engage in discussion? "...you rant...": What about? Where? When? "...you bull through,...": What do you mean by that? "...you deny other's points and that they have been put to you before.": What do you mean deny? I point out flaws in other's arguments but I don't deny them if they are valid. Sometimes points haven't been put to me before and I will state so when others say otherwise.

"You are unwilling to accept you shortcomings even when you point them out. Based on your own statement, you are not competent to copy edit but you do it any way.", What do you mean that I am "unwilling to accept" my "shortcomings" "even when" I "point them out"? "Based on your own statement, you are not competent to copy edit buy you do it any way.", What "statement" are you referring to?

"You may mean well, but you are more of a detriment to an active, healthy wiki than an asset. All of the editors are volunteers. They are giving their time to try and improve content, legibility, and accessibility. Yes, that includes copy editing. Bit it should not have to include cleaning up after possessive, zealous editors who keep making the same damn mess, often of the same articles. We have better things to do.", I am perfectly aware "All of the editors are volunteers. They are giving their time to try and improve content, legibility, and accessibility.".

"You are not worth the time to try and engage with to explain why edits have been changed or undone. You will not listen. You will not try and work with others. You will not even bother to try and follow along and/or read read the entirety of a post, much less try to understand what is presented to you in plain English.", "You are not worth the time to try and engage with to explain why edits have been changed or undone": That is more or less the attitude I've been given at times: "We can't bother to explain to you, so we won't."; "You will not listen.": I will listen if I am given a reasonable and logical explanation for something; "You will not try and work with others.": Not true; "You will not even bother to try and follow along and/or read read the entirety of a post, much less try to understand what is presented to you in plain English.": What do you think I am trying to do at this very moment? It's not as plain as you think it is.

"And to be clear: This is NOT a request for your rebuttal. This is the imprison you have made and confirmed.", What have I "made and confirmed"?