→Warning: Clear breach of neutraility |
Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs) Blocked for long |
||
Line 105: | Line 105: | ||
{{{icon|[[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|25px|left]] }}}Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutral point of view policy]] by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to [[:George W. Bush]], you '''will''' be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing Wikipedia. {{{2|}}}<!-- Template:uw-npov3 --> [[User:Gwernol|Gwernol]] 01:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC) |
{{{icon|[[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|25px|left]] }}}Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutral point of view policy]] by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to [[:George W. Bush]], you '''will''' be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing Wikipedia. {{{2|}}}<!-- Template:uw-npov3 --> [[User:Gwernol|Gwernol]] 01:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC) |
||
:You added "In March 2003, Bush ordered an [[2003 invasion of Iraq|invasion of Iraq]],'''due to the purposely manipulated information of the belief''' that Iraq" - that's your opinion, not a fact. If you don't understand that this is [[WP:NPOV|opinion]], then I suggest you stop editing, since you clearly don't understand the concept of neutrality at all. [[User:Gwernol|Gwernol]] 01:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC) |
:You added "In March 2003, Bush ordered an [[2003 invasion of Iraq|invasion of Iraq]],'''due to the purposely manipulated information of the belief''' that Iraq" - that's your opinion, not a fact. If you don't understand that this is [[WP:NPOV|opinion]], then I suggest you stop editing, since you clearly don't understand the concept of neutrality at all. [[User:Gwernol|Gwernol]] 01:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC) |
||
== Blocked for long == |
|||
You just came back from two week-long blocks, you got my warning just above, and yet you continued several of your old longterm revert wars today (on [[Upper Silesian Metropolitan Union]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Upper_Silesian_Metropolitan_Union&diff=prev&oldid=126299024], on [[Free City of Danzig]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Free_City_of_Danzig&diff=prev&oldid=126299882], on [[Oksywie culture]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oksywie_culture&diff=prev&oldid=126299380], and on [[Alsace]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alsace&diff=126306862&oldid=125557207]) and started new edit wars on other titles such as [[Vincent Bochdalek]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vincent_Bochdalek&diff=126300160&oldid=125826015] and [[George W. Bush]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&diff=prev&oldid=126287543]. This can't be tolerated. Following my warning, I'm blocking you again for a longer period: one month this time. Please when you come back make sure you very seriously reconsider your attitude to Wikipedia editing, otherwise you'll soon be indef-blocked next time. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 06:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 06:12, 27 April 2007
Welcome to my Discussion page, leave a message if desired.
Strasbourg
Hi Rt9gokunks. I've corrected [1] the sentences you have added and moved "Gottfried von Strassburg" to Gottfried von Straßburg (remember the long "a"?). No hard feelings, RCS 08:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Huh? That IP doesn't look like R9t's. (Otherwise you'd now be accusing him of block-evasion.) I don't think that was him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- I highly doubt that IP is R9t, according to his userpage he lives in the United States. Traveling to germany just to evade a ban is something I doubt anyone would ever do. --Wildnox(talk) 22:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, okay. But the edits are definitely Rt9gokunks-like. Maybe he's on easter holyday in Germany? Besides, no German would ever write that the Franks spoke German, because they are taught otherwise at school. RCS 06:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- You guys realize that (if his user boxes are anything to go by) you're dealing with a high school kid with a super IQ and depression, right? I see that he's done a lot of damage (why do you think I came here?), but I'm sure a bit of guidance might do a lot better than all the raps across the fingers that I'm seeing here (not that I don't sympathize....). Jim_Lockhart 06:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, I'm sorry, I hadn't seen those userboxes. It would explain some things indeed. To RCS: I'm German, and I will happily write that the Franks spoke German, that's what we are taught at University. Old High German easily falls under "German-speaking" for me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, but you wouldn't understand a word of Althochdeutsch without a dictionary or some Semester under your belt, so i don't think that, in this context, you would call it plain German. Anyway, the Franks didn't even speak Althochdeusch, as far as i know. Cheers, --RCS 07:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- In the context of medieval language geography, the German-French linguistic boundary, the Oaths of Strasbourg etc., simple "German" is indeed quite common. Yes, that's early medieval Franks (9th cent.) speaking Old High German (some of them). And Strasbourg was already on the German side of the linguistic boundary at that time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, but you wouldn't understand a word of Althochdeutsch without a dictionary or some Semester under your belt, so i don't think that, in this context, you would call it plain German. Anyway, the Franks didn't even speak Althochdeusch, as far as i know. Cheers, --RCS 07:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, I'm sorry, I hadn't seen those userboxes. It would explain some things indeed. To RCS: I'm German, and I will happily write that the Franks spoke German, that's what we are taught at University. Old High German easily falls under "German-speaking" for me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think they (the user boxes) explain a lot, too. I know this is pure speculation, but what I figure is that he's fascinated by some of this stuff but doesn't yet know about the fine nuances, so he's biting off a bit more than he can chew. There's no need to be condescending or anything, but there must be a way to help him channel his energies so he can be a constructive contributor. He needs to learn that there's more to Germanic than just being German—like, the Franks were a Germanic tribe, but their descendants are neither all French nor all German, and all present-day Germans are not descended from the Franks. Takes more than a few high-school history classes to take that all in, though. <g> Good luck, and HTH... Jim_Lockhart 12:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- You guys realize that (if his user boxes are anything to go by) you're dealing with a high school kid with a super IQ and depression, right? I see that he's done a lot of damage (why do you think I came here?), but I'm sure a bit of guidance might do a lot better than all the raps across the fingers that I'm seeing here (not that I don't sympathize....). Jim_Lockhart 06:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, okay. But the edits are definitely Rt9gokunks-like. Maybe he's on easter holyday in Germany? Besides, no German would ever write that the Franks spoke German, because they are taught otherwise at school. RCS 06:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
165.234.104.4 (talk · contribs)
How many chances this is our blocked friend? Don't call me paranoid, though... RCS 17:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'd say a much better chance than the other IP, since this one is from the same state, has a similar motive, and has been accused before. Different city still, but that definitely doesn't rule sockpuppetry out.(My IP once indicated that I was in Columbus, which wasn't the case at all.) The IP also has a history of editing the same subjects and has been accused before of sockpuppetry. If you think this is a serious case of block evasion, please report at one of the admin noticeboards. --Wildnox(talk) 18:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Yep, 165.* is definitely him.THAT IS NOT ME AND MY I.P IS NOT EVEN CLOSE TO THAT YOU MORONS.- R9tgokunks, please stop it. Normal procedure would be for your block to be reset to another week now, for block evasion. As I think your original one-week block was rather on the harsh side, I'm letting you get away with it this once, but please don't try this again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- I AM SO F*ing *DAMN TIRED OF EVERYONE SAYING THAT I HAVE A SOCK-PUPPET OR THAT THESE PEOPLE THEY SEE VANDALIZING "POLISH OR FRENCH PAGES" AND ADDING THINGS THAT I USUALLY ADD, ARE ME. JUST LEAVE ME THE F* ALONE AND GET A F* CHECK ON THE FACTS, INSTEAD OF BEING SO *DAMN PARANOID, AND I DO NOT CARE IF YOU THINK ITS "EVASION", BECAUSE THATS NOT F*ing ME, DO A CHECK-USER OR WHATEVER THE HELL YOU WANT JUST EVERYONE LEAVE ME THE F* ALONE.
AfD nomination of Electrogoth
An article that you have been involved in editing, Electrogoth, has been listed by me for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electrogoth. Thank you.TheDarknessVisible 19:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Your recent edits
Hello R9t, first of all, thank you for your work on the History of English template. I don't want this to look as if I was just out to get you or harass you. I noticed you were trying to introduce some optional parameter tweaks. I actually like that idea. Do you want help with those? I could probably fix them if you still want that. -- As for the other things, about those etymologies, please refrain from making etymology edits if you are not very certain you can source them. You evidently aren't very knowledgable about historical linguistics, and you keep mixing up concepts like "derive from" and "cognate with", and you also seem to be adding etymologies simply on the basis of your guesses. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- R9t, I've given RCS a strict civility warning because he's really been attacking you rather badly. But you are now well over 3RR on the Kraj article. I won't block you myself, because I was myself reverting you, but I warn you to please stop all contentious edits now, or I'll report you and you'll most certainly get blocked for another long period. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, R9t, your edits on Kraj and in the other similar pages were being revert because your additions were false. Or, at best, irrelevant. Simple as that. You had no evidence that "Kraj" was in any way related to "Kreis". So, of course, people will remove those claims as long as they are not cited. And on the German dab page, the point is not whether we want summaries or not. We do in fact want them, short ones, as concise as possible, just as much as is necessary to identify what the entry is about. What we don't want is (1) summaries that contain other, unrelated wiki-links; (2) unrelated "see also"'s, and (3) entries that are not really confusable, because they contain "German" only as part of a descriptive term (like "German cuisine"). Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Blocked
As you have a history of edit-warring, and have chosen to again violate the three-revert rule, you have been blocked for one week. Please engage in discussion or dispute resolution rather than edit wars. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I see you do not understand the situation... — Preceding unsigned comment added by R9tgokunks (talk • contribs)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/Appointment_red.svg/48px-Appointment_red.svg.png)
R9tgokunks (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I think this is highly unfair [...] overlong request shortened, see full text below
Decline reason:
You clearly engaged in an edit war on the Kraj article; while personal attacks on you are not warranted, they are not an excuse for you to break WP:3RR yet again. None of what you reverted was vandalism and you did revert it five times. Given that you have been blocked for 3RR violations three times before and have just come off a block for disruption, I believe you are lucky this is only a one week block. When your block expires, stop edit warring, stop insulting other editors (even if they insult you) and stop removing content from articles out of spite. Gwernol 23:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- Original block request duplicated below. It is so unnecessarily long that it breaks the {{unblock reviewed}} template. In future restrict your unblock requests to a few lines with only the reason why you should be unblocked. Thanks, Gwernol 23:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I think this is highly unfair, but no one will care, because, although I was reverting vandalism, i was forced into the 4 reversions by Tulkolahten (talk · contribs) who should also be blocked for falsely accusing me of "vandalism"and also I just got off a block for a week, which was also highly unfair!And i have highly been harassed by Tulkolahten (talk · contribs) today... AND RCS (talk · contribs)!
- 1st revert(REVERTING VANDALISM, See below explanation): 17:23, 14 April 2007
- 2nd revert(REVERTING VANDALISM, See below explanation): 17:49, 14 April 2007
3rd revert(WAS NOT A REVERT, See below explanation): 18:06, 14 April 20074th3rd revert(REVERTING VANDALISM, See below explanation): 18:29, 14 April 20075th4th revert(REVERTING VANDALISM, See below explanation): 18:39, 14 April 2007
I was warned once, and i listened to the warning, and stopped all editing on the concerned articles:
"R9t, I've given RCS a strict civility warning because he's really been attacking you rather badly. But you are now well over 3RR on the Kraj article. I won't block you myself, because I was myself reverting you, but I warn you to please stop all contentious edits now, or I'll report you and you'll most certainly get blocked for another long period."
--Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
"OK, I will stop on those pages, I have stopped reverting. But people are strange... they are vandalizing it but calling me a vandal when i RE-add the information they removed..."
--Hrödberäht(gespräch) 20:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- 1st revert: I reverted vandalism by Tulkolahten (talk · contribs) as he had removed content, which was content I added, and the reason was misleading:
, but really, it was probably reverted because he didn't like it personally."rv, get out with poor etymology here"
- 2nd revert: Again reverted vandalism by Tulkolahten (talk · contribs) he removed content, which was content I added, and the reason was because he didn't like it personally, and added a misleading edit summary,
along with a personal attack making it seem like i didnt known what the Czech language even was."rv nonsense, that guy don't know what Czech language is"
. In truth, I didn't say anything about the Czech language, so i am confused as to why he would add something irrelevant while continuing his reversions...."that guy don't know what Czech language is"
- 3rd revert: Was not a revert. i re-worded information, and re added that information back to the article.
- 4th revert: I reverted vandalism by RCS (talk · contribs) he removed content, which was content I added, and reverted due to a misleading edit summary,
. I was actually the one who re-added the vandalized information that was removed by RCS and Tulkolahten. and he had a misleading, and a copy, of an edit summary already done, for the purpose of makeing me seem stupid and like an ill-informed vandal."rv vandalism"
. actually Future Perfect said :{{User|R9tgokunks}}, listen to what Future Perfect said, it makes perfect sense
and i did not add any etymologies back to the article but apparently RCS thinks i was adding unsourced etymologies again.partial rv, please don't add unsourced etymologies.
- 5th revert: Again I reverted vandalism by Tulkolahten (talk · contribs) as he had removed content, which was content I added, and the reason was misleading:
, but really, it was probably reverted because he didn't like it personally, and he was actually the one removing the information... and instead claimed myself, the one who added the information, was a vandal. -- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 21:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)"rv vandalism"
- 1st revert: I reverted vandalism by Tulkolahten (talk · contribs) as he had removed content, which was content I added, and the reason was misleading:
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/Appointment_red.svg/48px-Appointment_red.svg.png)
R9tgokunks (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I think this is highly unfair, but no one will care. Tulkolahten (talk · contribs) used such misleading edit summaries and scapegoated non-existant problems so he could get me blocked.I noticed he has been stalking me around Wikipedia, and tracking my every edit, i also recieved an unkind personal attack from him today: Quote:"that guy don't know what Czech language is". All-in-all I was reverting vandalism, and only reverted in 4 reversions, and not 5 like Tulkolahten claims; also I was warned, and I stopped reverting, but was still blocked anyway.
Decline reason:
This has already been reviewed and declined. The unblock request clearly says, in bold: " Do not replace this message with another unblock request nor add another unblock request." Please stop or your block will be extended and this page will be protected to prevent further disruption from you Gwernol 00:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- Please stop, you are on the verge of receiving a very long block for continued disruption. If you wish to edit Wikipedia again, please wait out your block. If you continue to vandalize this page or abuse the unblock request privilege you will be blocked for a considerable period of time and your ability to edit this page will be removed. Again, if you are serious about contributing to Wikipedia instead of disrupting it, please wait out your block period and make constructive contributions when it expires. Thanks, Gwernol 00:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- I removed it because i already said it .... you are extremely biased against me and would like me banned...-- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 00:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- I would like my block range to be changed to 8-16 hours. This block is completely unfair... and even after i had said i would stop!-- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 00:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- No I didn't do that, I have Kraj and Okres in my watch list. But you can hardly derive etymology from similarity. You can't say russian Krai and czech Kraj are directly derived from german Kreis. That's not how the etymology works, if there is a similarity then you must find the former word or add source to support your additions. But what you did was original unsourced research where you created an etymology line. Before my first revert I tried to find a sources, I myself wonder about the etymology, but I was unable to find anything. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 08:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- Could someone revert the vandalism done to Samoa??? Thanks, -- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 23:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- Done, thanks for spotting that, Gwernol 23:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
HELP!
- 1. I would like someone to move Upper Silesian Industry Area to Upper Silesian Industrial Area. As that is proper English.(if you do not believe me then see [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. And could someone revert the edits by Xlkce (talk · contribs) to Upper Silesian Industry Area? He keeps adding completely irrelevant, duplicated , but minorly tweaked to recognize the title of the article it is in, information from the Katowice article. PLEASE SOMEONE GIVE THIS A MINUTE OF THEIR TIME!
- 2. I am VERY tired of the ongoing situation at Upper Silesian Metropolitan Union, i keep removing duplicate information from the Katowice article, but Xlkce (talk · contribs) and LUCPOL (talk · contribs) keep reverting my edits and call me a vandal. PLEASE, someone other than myself NEEDS to revert back to the last version by me. USMU is a PROPOSED union...and now ....LUCPOL has not only reverted my edits like ususal... but also removed ''proposed''.
- 3.Also Pomeranian has been vandalized again by Krzysztoflew. He reverted it to the version he made a long time ago(which was inaccurate and had an obvious bias), reverting over Olessi's improved version.-- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 01:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Paris 75000 is vandalizing the history Table I made at Alsace, again!!!! -- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 01:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- I do not vandalize your work, I just try to be the closest I can to the only single truth... Your edits are a step across the line, maybe you think you are on the right side but you're not. You can easily see how many users you are making upset. Moreover, you are blocked once more.... You have to think twice about it... Why have simple users blocked you ? You always says that others are vandalizing, but for the first time you may have to make a brainstorming in your head : evidences suggest that your long-standing attitude shows a misconception of the world. You simply put the blame on others users, once okay, more, you have an hidebound views. So before reverted, try to talk with the user (it can be me...) in order to draw a line between what is false and what is correct. I try more than once to talk with you. But you simply erase all my mails... how can we have an adult talk? How can we expose our arguments? You put on your userpage you've got an IQ of 142... pretty good, but your behavior is not according to it. I really hope that one day you'll grow up a little bit to pass on the talk page before erasing. user:Paris75000 13:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Aivazovsky (talk · contribs) has gone through all user pages with an Armenian Genocide userbox, and replaced the images with offensive, burning candle pictures. All of the vandalism was done on April 15th -- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 02:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Sorry, i made a horrible mistake...
- Hello. I haven't looked at the Upper Silesian situation - it's so chaotic I can't be bothered to look at it until somebody gives me a short and precise summary of what the dispute is about. As for the Armenian userbox, I'm not sure why a burning candle would be found "offensive" as a symbol of memorial (I find it rather a good choice); but the point is that the previous image was deleted on commons, for copyright reasons. It had to be replaced, look into your page history and see what your page would be looking like now if Aivazovsky hadn't replaced the link. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- I, User:LUCPOL and User:Xlkce and User:Mareklug - we improved article Upper Silesian Metropolitan Union, however User:R9tgokunks removes the majority of article claiming that article doubles Katowice. This article it does not double the article Katowice, only the part of article Katowice the cover oneself with article the Upper Silesian Metropolitan Union (because Katowice are main district of Upper Silesian Metropolitan Union).
User:R9tgokunks be not able to understand obvious fact.I to "Upper Silesian Industry Area" matter do not meddle because I partly support User:R9tgokunks.LUCPOL 15:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- I, User:LUCPOL and User:Xlkce and User:Mareklug - we improved article Upper Silesian Metropolitan Union, however User:R9tgokunks removes the majority of article claiming that article doubles Katowice. This article it does not double the article Katowice, only the part of article Katowice the cover oneself with article the Upper Silesian Metropolitan Union (because Katowice are main district of Upper Silesian Metropolitan Union).
- I took a look on it and I found this [7], it is not true that all references must be in english only. And as I can see I must agree with LUCPOL, don't know why R9tgokunks does this, but anyway if he will explain, clarify and tell us why he is doing that maybe we would understand. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 15:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- PLEASE REVERT VANDALISM TO Serbian language!!! -- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 22:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I did my best. Is that what you were looking for? Space Cadet 23:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Alright, my last edit on this page was supposed to undo the refactor to LUCPOL's comment. I have no idea how it turned into a removal of space cadet's comment, likely either a glitch or I clicked the wrong item on the history page. You're use of the word "vandalism" is not appreciated, you've been warned about that before. Now on to the edit I was trying to make. I was undoing your refactor of LUCPOL's comment above. There is no reason to alter another user's comments. If you feel he is lying about something or is flat out incorrect, comment below his. Editing another users comments is frowned upon in wikipedia, except in certain circumstances; WP:TALK describes those circumstances. There is one part of LUCPOL's comment that I did leave struck, since that part was a personal attack and personal attacks are one of the circumstances where editing of others comments is allowed. --Wildnox(talk) 03:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
The blockade of your account ended and your vandalisms came back. When will you finish destroying articles?
The blockade of your account ended and your vandalisms came back. When will you finish destroying articles? LUCPOL 09:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Warning
R9t and Lucpol, to both of you: this is a final warning. You both went back to blind reverts on Upper Silesian Metropolitan Union immediately after that last block. You've been doing this for many weeks now, without any constructive discussion. I expect you guys to start discussing now and work it out together. If I see any more non-consensual reversions of this material in the article, you will both be blocked for a good long time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f7/Nuvola_apps_important.svg/25px-Nuvola_apps_important.svg.png)
Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to George W. Bush, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Gwernol 01:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- You added "In March 2003, Bush ordered an invasion of Iraq,due to the purposely manipulated information of the belief that Iraq" - that's your opinion, not a fact. If you don't understand that this is opinion, then I suggest you stop editing, since you clearly don't understand the concept of neutrality at all. Gwernol 01:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Blocked for long
You just came back from two week-long blocks, you got my warning just above, and yet you continued several of your old longterm revert wars today (on Upper Silesian Metropolitan Union [8], on Free City of Danzig [9], on Oksywie culture [10], and on Alsace [11]) and started new edit wars on other titles such as Vincent Bochdalek [12] and George W. Bush [13]. This can't be tolerated. Following my warning, I'm blocking you again for a longer period: one month this time. Please when you come back make sure you very seriously reconsider your attitude to Wikipedia editing, otherwise you'll soon be indef-blocked next time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)