"{{unblock|THANK YOU for a reasonable fucking comment!!! The ONLY USER in ANY AREA who has actually made one!!  (Ebyabe made comments which appear to be reasonable at first glance, but are actually unreasonable because one is fraudulent and the other was untrue regarding a place where she could see that it was untrue.)  Well a sort-of reasonable comment anyway because he claims that I am being ""confrontational"" when it is clearly visible at my talk page that other users are attacking me and not the other way around.  I have not caused any confrontation...   I have replied to other users who are putting a confrontation to me.  (I did ask how to report a user, but I did not actually report him because nobody answered regardless of several posts made, and the user himself did not comment there, so that was not a confrontation like it would have been if I'd been able to make the report.)  I would like to leave a message at this user User:Stwalkerster's talk page but I cannot, because for some reason those are blocked to, so I have to do it this way instead.  Hopefully he has the notifications turned on (tags of username).  I can be calm and work with other people.  This is noted in my first reply, where it gives several examples of how users should have had discussion instead of attacking and reverting me and arguing hostilely on my talk page.  Users who wish to work with me should not make attacks, write words like ""compliance"", revert edits when they could have further fixed the edit instead (details of referred-to edits in a separate paragraph below, make false claims against me, or delete my replies on discussion pages (not talk pages) and then ARCHIVE it after removing them!!  (Users should not do these kinds of things to anyone.)  What this means is that if users act in a reasonable manner, then a normal discussion can ensue (including from myself).  Merely because someone has used a template, written a shorter reply, or wrote their aggressive, confrontational remarks in a business-style manner, does not mean that they are ""being reasonable"" or ""writing nicely"".  When someone makes a falsified report about you or writes a falsified comment, etc., it is not reasonable to expect the victim to reply without mentioning this, or to want to ""be friends"" with the attacker.  If the other people are being reasonable then of COURSE I am going to reply to them in a different way.  Editing an article by...(below) is not reasonable, nor is ""ganging up"" (the discussion page), nor is replying in several places at once, etc.  How can replying to other users stating bad and/or false things about you be ""confrontational""?  I have mentioned several times about having an actual discussion but no one did this and instead just kept replying on my talk pages.  The fact that I mentioned having a discussion indicates that I think reasonable discussion is the right or reasonable way to do it.  Just no one wanted to do anything but attack me so I did not have another way.

The headlines are not ""veiled"", they are in plain light.  It was not any attempt to be ""hidden"".  For headline #5, I literally do or did not know of a different way to title this headline which is not an attack on myself.  For headline #8, it is truthful and the falsification was blatant by Ebyabe, and I actually expected her to edit it to something on her next message.  I mean she directly mentions it; edit summary says a reason but her message says differently (directly, not implied).  For this headline, it is not a ""personal attack"" because it is true and evident: Administrator complains about my signature even though signature has been changed, and messages by me since posted, before the block happened, as well as direct linking to comments which contain no personal attacks as a reason for ""personal attacks"".  If the titles were UNTRUE they would be attacks, but since they are true unambiguously then they can't be attacks. The last headline yes, somewhat motivated/hostile, because he is the one put an useless headline so that there's TWO AT ONCE, *AFTER* my notice is up, while also writing the things that show the actual tyranny (a word used in this case solely because it is already being talked about, and not meant as any attack/instigation/hostile/etc.). Although the link by Jamie appears to say something about political opinions, if someone is making false claims then it is appropriate for them to be exposed.

So as you can see my intents are to be reasonable and normal (with the 'possible' exception of this particular headline), and repeatedly asking other people to do this, but being annoyed by all their attacks and false remarks as well.

Edits (in a separate paragraph so that reading it is optional): ""Users working with me should not...revert edits when they could have further fixed the edit instead"" - Instead of reverting multiple times, attacking, and then harassing, the use