"

Also, everything you linked to Dennis Brown, was quite obviously meant as humor. ""ALL I DID WAS TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT COAL WITH SOURCES. Those who blocked me ARE IN THE POCKET OF BIG COAL AND I EXPOSED THEIR NEFARIOUS plots. Please FREE KINGSHOWMAN!"" 

Don't Wikipedia editors catch obvious attempts at humour? Perhaps you didn't find them funny, but they were meant as attempts at levity during the heated so-called ""Coal Wars"". I was also not entirely alone in the position I took there on coal which was simply that a paragraph needed to be added to the lead to reflect Coal's Health and Environmental Effects. I wasn't taking an unreasonable position, and you will now see, that thanks to my tireless, thankless efforts to improve this encylopedia, that information is now in the lead on Coal. (not through reverts by me, but by others who agreed with my position.) I have not edited coal since my block, so I'm not quite sure how it makes sense to blocvk me again for something that I haven't gone back to doing.

Also, I did not harrass Flyer22. She harrassed me. May I relate the course of events,  which you may verify? First of all, I stopped communicating with her since she requested that I do so. Second of all, she got steamed because I added a paragraph on Nietzsche to her ""Happiness"" article under the section ""Philsoophy of Happiness."" Arguably (as other editors agreed) Nietzsche may have something valuable to say here, and I very quiickly made a summary of the SEP article on Nietzsche's moral philosophy on this topic. No, it wasn't perfect and the referencing could have used improvement, but it was better than omitting it and leaving readers with a somewhat one-sided impression of the Great Philosophers on Happiness. Flyer22 reverted my edit, giving a basically spurious reason: ""Unsourced"" as I recall. But it was directed to THE MOST RELIABLE source on Philosophy, by general and academic consensus, the SEP. It would in fact be very easy to improve a great deal of Wiki Philosophy articles by just having editors sum up information from this wonderful free, peer-reviewed, academically rigorous resource.

Then, withouit provocation, after I asked her what exactly she found problematic about including Nietzsche in a list of philosophers who have written about Happiness, including similar statured luminaries like Augustine, Aquinas, Aristotle, Mill, etc. she responded, not by listing what was wrong with my Happiness edit, but by telling me ""ALL OF YOUR EDITS ARE POOR, PURE AND SIMPLE. YOU ARE A POOR EDITOR."" I thought this was rather rude and ignorant, especfially as she saw fit to specifically attack my Hume edits (when Hume was not under discussion) telling me ""your edits on Hume largely consit of such (read=poor) edits and I'm tempted to revert them."" Since I hate to see a poor soul suffering under the weight of such crushing temptation, I gave in to the temptation myself, and deleted all of my contributions from this encylopedia. Within hours, a throng of rebellion began to emerge,. a grass-roots protest movement which demanded the immediate return of all the much-loved Kingshowman edits to the encylopedia. Editors rushed to my defense. I told Flyer22 to eat crow and admit that, contra her opinion, my Hume edits and contributions to this beloved tome of knowledge were not so poor after all. She declined and escalated her attacks. She was the one who harrassed me, and I thought we were done with this sordid little episode until she popped back up, eager to participate in the latest round of mob justice.   Kingshowman"