“My deepest excuses. I sincerelly thought you made a mistake with your first message because I haven’t been editing the Wikipedia in months, and didn’t take the time to carefully read neither your message nor the blog for my second answer. I’ll get into fixing the article. You might consider doing it yourself if a similar situation is to happen again. Thanks for taking the time.”

Like many things, Wikipedia is only all too human!

—You might like to check out this blog concerning your repeated reversion of edits:
http://www.shrapnelfromaloosecannon.com/index.php?s=wikipedia
You might also like to check out the World Health Organisation site cited. It does say “day-time biting”.

The response?
—I have to deduce that message was destinated to someone else since I haven’t edited the article in quite a long time. Leaving you a message in case you would like to send it to the proper user. Good wiking,

@!#?

My response:
—Thanks for your message. I’m not sure what you mean by “a long time”, but if you look at the blog in question you’ll notice that it is dated April this year. The history of the article suggests that it is you who made the reversions.

And their response?
—Well, I do call 4 months a long time. But I wouldn’t say ‘repeated’ for ‘twice’. My reverts weren’t trying to comfirm what was written, but reverted some unconfirmed information (e.i. a comparison between mosquitoes’ habits). Perhaps a good clean up of the article should be proposed.

I kind of hit the roof after that:
—I mentioned the blog because I thought you might be interested in what someone is saying about you. Instead of checking it out, you first give me a blank look (”I have to deduce that message was destinated to someone else”) and then propose some nonsensical cleanup of the article.

Perhaps instead of stonewalling you should check out the blog I mentioned, take a look at the WHO source mentioned there, and just possibly consider changing the information at the article. Why does the entire article need a cleanup when a source for correcting factual information is being shoved right under your nose? (end of quote)

I can only say that you seem to have hit on a particularly difficult and obtuse editor. But then, that is the problem with Wikipedia. I think this article expresses it most lucidly:

http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/000060.html

And other articles by the same person. Links to those articles can be found at the Wikipedia article on Jason Scott Sadofsky!