i can only apologise for my prior tone please accept my heartfelt apologies i'm sure neither of us wants those discretionary sanctions slapped on me you seem to be under the impression i feel my actual purpose has been misunderstood for it was not my intention to claim it was your responsibility to make the corrections you deemed necessary if you don't want to make an edit don't wikipedia participation is entirely voluntary after all what i had meant to do as i thought was clear was infer incorrectly i am told the depth of your concern from your inaction i don't think mag is you are entitled to your opinion of of course but the root source was the twitter feed of ofir gendelman i always try to learn from my mistakes and so i'll make sure next time to put a url to the root source to save us both some typing y ou used 'sardonic' where the source uses 'sarcastic the source only one i see two the first of which describes it as a 'mocking' letter i simply felt the word took into account the aggregate description of the letter's content i felt this complaint was unwarranted but it was dutifully attended to without reflection by jabotito to his credit his actions indicate that he too disagrees with your implied view that someone only cedes responsibility for a section of an article when they have written strictly less than or equal to fifty percent of its content the source you used as a ref for the netanyahu statement indeed upon inspection it appears i cited the wrong times of israel article i thank you sincerely for bringing the mistake to my attention and it has been dealt with inn is generally an unacceptable source however for something so small i couldn't see the harm i am forced to concede one point it's a simple matter of the article saying what the source says for some reason my instinctive reaction is to immediately attempt to contradict you on this occasion i should have agreed with you w e're at at this point thus the tag may be there for quite a while