Bruce: These issues must be dealt with if you are to continue editing this wiki. Do not remove the following text, move it to another page, or otherwise move it out of the way. Sidetracking will get you nowhere. Please respond to the facts below or stop editing.

Fact #1: Other editors have discussed many specific edits with you.
Fact #2: Other editors have told you how those edits violate wiki norms.
Fact #3: You have continued to violate those wiki norms with subsequent edits, and insisted that editors provide new explanations.
Fact #4: The editors have repeated the explanations (many, many, many times), but you continue to break wiki norms.
Fact #5: Other editors have become frustrated because you repeatedly ignore wiki norms — and they have stated this.
Fact #6: Other editors have become frustrated because, each time, you act as though you are hearing these explanations for the first time — and they have stated this.
Fact #7: When other editors try to discuss their concerns and frustrations with you, you either ignore them or derail the discussion with side issues.

All of these facts are demonstrably true. Do you disagree with any of them? If so, please state which ones. It would help other editors understand where your thinking is. It would be most helpful if you just answered the question "yes or no," and then listed which facts you disagree with, if any.

(Bruce created a whole separate page with the info above + his reply which I see absolutely no reason for...sorry it looks like another stall attempt. Anyways I deleted it & copies his reply below. —Users/PeterBoulay

Do to time constraint, I respectfully ask those interested in this subject to be patient to receive my response. I do not intend to avoid this matter, rather I will attempt to clarify and help resolve this issue. Some significant points are that I had been pursuing legitimate editing goals, but I didn't want to fight to prevail. The mention of possible trolling was something that was untrue and not what I am about. An ensuing discussion of that, of which this discussion is a continuation, was painful for me. I was totally off-line from a week before last Friday until the following Sunday, so that I would not get sucked into this wiki. Eventually I started to edit without reading most of the above "Facts," most of which were probably on my user page later on Sunday when I accidentally saw my page and that there was a list, but left the page without reading it. (Later editors were trying to entice me back to my user page, so I minimized the side of the page window and took a peek at the first line and read that I was into bouldering and flew my own plane — I wish. I got a chuckle out of that.) I acknowlege that I made some editing mistakes. I believe there were some things I learned. I noticed day before yesterday that I became absorbed in the Wiki to the detriment of balance in my life and the best edits that I am capable, which negatively effected the lives of others. So it actually is with thought of benefit to all, that I am trying to have balance in my life and so, have not immediately responded to the demands of others. Thank you for your understanding. —BruceHansen

Since I already made this page the way I wanted it, but it was deleted by an editor, I'll just suggest the alternative that the content above be placed in a comment section like is normally done on a user page. Starting with "Fact #1: Other editors have discussed many specific edits with you." This does not look good at the time of my user page. I realize I'm just an editor that has to explain to a small group of perhaps lordly editors that the "facts" at the top of the page only have to do with a relatively small portion of my editing history. Any other user coming to this page will not have a very good introduction to my user page. They may perhaps not know that a select group of editors seemingly insist on having this topic here. They won't have a place to leave a comment for me in the normal manner. Perhaps you know this without me having to tell you, but I don't see that you're demonstrating that you do know. Back to "Fact #1," of course I know that in my entire editing history, there have been many communications about specific edits. However more specifically, since around the time when I first deleted this page, I remember stating that I would like to know which specific edits to discuss. I was told something like, "We have told you before." A second inquiry would bring a response like, "We have repeatedly told you before." As far as I'm concerned, just based on my memory, the only editor to have the decency to respond to my questions about specific edits was EdWins when the discussed the "university" link that I had made and then removed on Navigating Davis. CovertProfessor responded by stating that all my edits in an edit of Navigating Davis were bad. I don't believe that. I haven't looked at the edits there since he stated that. His statement is probably just part of the nonsense that he demonstrates sometimes. "Fact #1" is not a fact, but perhaps you'll stick with it as well as some of the rest of your knowledge. Hopefully not. —BruceHansen

Hey there Bruce, have you ever heard the names Charlie Sheen, Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan etc...? And by the way, how can you edit so much? I can't, don't you have a full time job? Anyway silence is golden sometimes, and not to sound like an ass most of your edits compared to other wiki editors give me a headache to read. Again, it's just my two sense. P.S. You don't have to edit everything on the wiki? or do you? -Angry Diner

Hey Bruce, thanks for saying I have some decency. Most people don't, heh. I hate to say it, but I can quickly think up a bunch of pages and scenarios where people have spoken about some of your edits. "Edits" as a term includes new page ideas, page reorganizations, etc. I know I have for more than just the university link: that was just the most recent. [WWW]Over here, I left a long comment about one. [WWW]Here's a talk page about another proposed reorganization (and that one links to Tunnel and Station, two more examples). You tried to [WWW]redirect something that led to a talk page as well. There was the [WWW]yoga guy page thing as well. Those are things off of your user page. If you're talking about super specific edits in discussion (which are covered in the above links to some degree) then there are plenty as well. Look at an older version of your page before you deleted all comments: I'm copy pasting, you'd have to go to an older version in order to see the links. But that's beside the point: these are specific edits being discussed.

On indexes and themes

(also a specific edit discussion:

Thanks. That's interesting about "meta-issue." I'm signing off now. —bh

On the disambiguation pages you kept creating/altering:

These are come blurbs it took me less than two minutes to find on your user page. There's quite a lot of links to specific edits. And this was all from your userpage: there are dozens of similar contents on talk pages that have spawned discussing your edits. Also, notice you frequently mention you don't have time to finish a discussion because you must go, or couldn't respond because you were gone. There are actually more mentions of that on the dozens of talk pages, but they're more difficult to track down. (It was a lot easier to just look at your userpage before you deleted all comments).

I'm not trying to make you feel bad about it; I just wanted to point out that many people have discussed edits, and even I have done it more than the one mention you give me credit for. I think part of the reason people keep reverting your user page is because they feel that you are either refusing to acknowledge this, or feigning ignorance.

This is a Wiki Spot wiki. Wiki Spot is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization that helps communities collaborate via wikis.