User:ToeFungii/sandbox

To say I'm dumbfounded is an understatement. To try and respond is confusing as I'll ask KJ to change from bullets to numbered bullets so that it's easier to comment upon. KJ makes MANY mischaracterizations and misrepresentations of the facts above.

1. KJ makes a point to say there was Dark Phoenix (DP) collaboration, but DaveFilmer(DF) has not responded to the RfC DESPITE my inviting them to on his talk page here 31 days ago. So why would I invite him, and he responds on his talk page not being in total agreement here, and he never participates in the actual RfC. So the whole Dark Phoenix is a red herring and KJ neglects to mention this and instead misstates the facts.
2. KJ says I supported DF's position, but neglects to mention I disagreed with him here. KJ instead is misleading and misstates the facts.
3. KJ mischaracterizes the Charlie's Angels RfC by implying Davefilmer did it when KyleJoan actually did the RfC here. Again another attempt by KJ to mislead and misstate the facts.
4. With respect to "identical styles of article-linking, that's how I did it before I learned how to do it better as I've done: here, here, here, here, and on a ton more I could provide. DaveFilmer still does links the same way as in here, a fact that KyleJoan knows because the example I gave of DF is discussing CA a week ago but KJ neglected to mention that and again mislead and misstate the facts.
5. Not sure what is meant by "incomplete citations". There's the "cite your sources" button at the bottom that inserts ref wikicode and you put the link there - that's incomplete? Then everybody does it including KJ who again is just misstating the facts.
6. What's funny is I have 3 RfCs Here 13 days old, Here 13 days old, and here 31 days old where DaveFilmer has not contributed and on the first two I could use a supporting vote. So if we were/are the same person, why wouldn't I/we have double contributed? Again, KJ neglects to mention this and misstates the facts.
7. KJ says I supported DaveFilmer's stance on Charlie's Angels (CA). There are only two options, so I took one and it happened to be the opposite of KJ, but the discussion has been on-going for a week with 8 people and the RfC is only 4 days old and has 26 more days to go. There was no pressure that something was going to be decided imminently, but is everyone that sides against KJ going to be accused?
8. Three of the bullets about "identical" vocabularies are two that relate two words that aren't used "identically" if it takes three sentences to make a connection. And the word "balance" is on WP:NPOV nineteen times so obviously it would be used in a discussion involving WP:NPOV. Another attempt by KJ to mislead and misstate the facts.
9. With respect to "productive discussion," are two words amongst MANY so one would think there would be more examples and I welcome KJ to provide them. This exact phrase is on WP:BEYOND and WP:Cool and used here and here amongst many more. If we were the same person, I'd think more than two words that would have overlapped when trying to express a point of view and I had a lot of words while DF is much less loquacious. So again, a red herring and misleading.
10. With respect to my incivility, yes I was, but at the time didn't think it to be uncivil. It was on my first day of contributing. The reason I did it is minor because I did do it, but it was in response to a user that reverted me twice when I was trying to fix a problem sentence. Before my second submission I sought and received help from the Wikipedia:Teahouse and my second edit was exactly as what was given to me there by an admin. So when the person again reverted me without any explanation, I asked why they were so intractable which I thought was a reasonable question but now know that could be considered rude. After this 2nd revert, two other users criticized this person for biting me and ultimately the sentence was in fact changed by another user very close to what I had originally submitted. To see where another user came to my defense for having been accused of incivility please see here. But that's the only negative comment that I'm aware of that's been made about me and welcome KJ to show differently.
11. KJ appears to simply have it out for anyone that takes a different opinion on content and from scanning their history they can be very condescending and regularly does not put any reason in the edit summary. Reverting without an explanation can be considered uncivil.
12. I've responded to about 6-7 RfCs (that I don't believe Davefelmer or KyleJoan have commented on) but because I respond to a RfC I'm interested in I'm smeared?
13. I'm not DaveFilmer who I suspect based on using the word "Mate" is from Australia and I'm in the US so our ip's will not be anywhere close although I guess they could be anywhere.