Changes

== Reverts and "Protected" ==

== Reverts and "Protected" ==

So engaging in discussion is "harassing" to you?  Isn't that was is recommended and the policy?  Communication? And engagement?  Even if blunt?  You put silly stuff on on Northwest's talk page, and then did what you did.  You obviosly have no credibility...so it's irrelevant at this point in a way.  But I'm curious.... (And I know you'll probably just dodge and delete...like a rude juvenile no-answer evasive schmuck...as you've proven what type of person and editor you are already...)  But I am curious....

So engaging in discussion is "harassing" to you?  Isn't that was is recommended and the policy?  Communication? And engagement?  Even if blunt?  You put silly stuff on on Northwest's talk page, after did what you did.  You obviously have no credibility...so it's irrelevant at this point in a way.  But I'm curious.... (And I know you'll probably just dodge and delete...like a rude juvenile no-answer evasive schmuck...as you've proven what type of person and editor you are already...)  But I am curious....

Why exactly did you revert me before putting that protection on that JW article, when my reverts were the justified ones?  It was obvious POV-PUSHING and opinion and blog bias that was put walls of text by "David" a few months ago.  So what was the reason you rudely undid my (necessary) undo, before doing what you did?   

Why exactly did you revert me before putting that protection on that JW article, when my reverts were the justified ones?  It was obvious POV-PUSHING and opinion and blog bias that was put walls of text by "David" a few months ago.  So what was the reason you rudely undid my (necessary) undo, before doing what you did?