| Revision as of 17:59, 14 June 2007 editCorticopia (talk | contribs)5,613 edits →Blocked: comment -- whatever← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:05, 15 July 2007 edit undoCorticopia (talk | contribs)5,613 editsm ←Blanked the pageNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| == Random Smiley Award == | |||
| <div style="background-color:#f9f0C9; border:1px solid #888850; clear:right; float:right; padding:2px; width:300px;"> | |||
| ]<small>For your contributions to Misplaced Pages and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted <b>]</b><br />originated by ]<br />(])</small> | |||
| </div> | |||
| <font color="purple">♠</font>] <small>('']'')</small><small>('']'')</small><small>('']'')</small> 21:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Sorting table at ]== | |||
| Sortability is very useful here, you can have the largest country first, etc. So I suppose your objection is the division by region which after sorting is only restored by refreshing the page. To remedy that we could make a column for the region.--] 13:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Etymology of Mexico== | |||
| No, I didn't revert your enhancements. I only moved the second paragraph to the beginning. But do as you wish, I won't do anything to the article at all. I am just tying to avoid a useless and frustrating confrontation again. --] 18:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Please see: . The link to the constitution is still there. Like I said, I only moved the second paragraph to the beginning. Since I was expanding the article, I put the "new" name in bold characters (i.e. "the name of Mexico"), which would have complied with the Manual of Style. That would be the only "enhancement" that might have been reverted. The rest, I kept. I still think the article could be improved and expanded by including the diverse names by which Mexico is known as well as some history of other names in disuse (''à la'' ], ], etc.). But the article is good as it is, and I rather avoid the headache of an unnecessary confrontation by simply being bold in an article of which I have been the major editor. Cheers! --] 18:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't think I will be able to do it today, but let me expand the article but leave the lead section and title as they are right now (your version). Then we can decide which title suits the content best. I think Toponymy, being the study of the place names of a region, might encompass etymology (that is, etymology could be, arguably, a subfield used in toponymy), in which case, simply "Toponymy of Mexico", while esoteric, might be our best choice. We can also create "Mexico's Name", "Names for Mexico", "Names of Mexico" and "Name of Mexico" as redirects. --] 18:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think you did a good job in handling the MUS - UMS situation. And I think the article has been greatly improved. I don't think I'll add anything else, I will probably just proof-read it. Thanks for your help. --] 17:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No, my comment was addressed to the other user. I agree with your perception and opinion on this matter. =) --] 19:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Random request== | |||
| Hi! A very minor question for you: Is there any chance you could perhaps vary your edit summaries a bit? It's fantastic that you're leaving them, however when they are all "comment", it is nearly impossible to tell one apart from another, especially when everyone's posting in such close succession. I'd hate to miss out on a relevant comment for such a silly reason as not realizing I didn't backtrack far enough! -] 03:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Wow, I totally forgot to mention that, didn't I? It was prompted by -- Those two strings of ''comment'''s are scary! :p And it figures that just as soon as I hit save here, you hit save over there with a different summary, too... -] 03:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Likewise. Such a ridiculous thing to have such an argument over! (And while it seems kind of silly to me to have an entire subsection for Antiquity, rather than just bolding it so it stands out, I really don't care that much one way or the other to fight over that ''too'', especially since it accomplishes the same thing either way.) | |||
| ::As for perfectionism... I tend to overuse the preview button. I also (usually) tend to avoid high-traffic articles, because I've already encountered quite enough edit conflicts when I take too long on the low-traffic ones. Those aren't fun. -] 03:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Weird sortation on North America == | |||
| It took me a little while to figure out which one was weird but it looks like the pop density went crazy because of the #expr. I'll double check that column before hitting save the next time. Thanks, ] 03:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Cyprus dispute== | |||
| Hiya - Your edit summary didn't say why you disagree with me about explicitly pointing people toward the ] article in the 2nd para of the intro. Rather than reverting you, I was wondering if you could tell me your reason for this repeated change? ] 13:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Canadian French/French in Canada == | |||
| I have closed the discussion, and moved the article to ]. I also moved the history of ] to the same article, see ] for my close. I hope y'all build this into a great article, I think it has potential. ] 03:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Works for me, I deleted the redirect on the talk page of Candadian French so that you can start a new discussion there. ] 04:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ¡Hola Corticopia! == | |||
| <div style="float:center; border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">] | |||
| {{{1|<font color="#CE1126">]</font>''<font color="#006847">]</font>'' ] ] <sup><font size="1" color="green">]</font></sup>}}} has smiled at you! Smiles promote ] and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! {{{2|}}} <br /> Smile at others by adding {{tls|Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. | |||
| </div><!-- Template:smile --><font color="#CE1126">]</font>''<font color="#006847">]</font>'' ] ] <sup><font size="1" color="green">]</font></sup> 05:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Turkey == | |||
| <small>Moved from your userpage by ] <sup>]</sup> 17:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)</small> | |||
| dear Corticopia i am realy dont wanna be in edit war,Turkey is always member of european block(for every unity) and Turkey will join to eu in 2015 and Cuprus is member | |||
| and if Turkey and cyprus arnt european why EU accept to Enters?? | |||
| i am sure u can remember morroco was apply and european parlement blocked,They said"morroco isnt in europe" | |||
| So please vivist to european concil web and see Who are european and please dot remove my demand, | |||
| thanks for raed and ure understending. | |||
| ] 16:47, May 2, 2007 | |||
| ::Corticopia - I also note that your repeated reverts on the Europe entry removed mention of Armenia while retaining Azerbaijan, and wonder if that is the reason behind your vandalism. ] 21:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Research? == | |||
| If you plan to edit ] article, please show a substantial amount of research. So far, you have only damaged the article and I would very much appreciate if you just leave it alone.] 01:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::In addition, when it says southeast to Continental Europe, it does not necessarily mean that it is located in Europe. Please look at the wording again. ] 01:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::As I noticed you have an interest of reverting the ], ] and Georgia articles and I don't think that there is much to discuss. ] 01:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I guess your plans are to do some kind of academics raid over the region, but as far as Georgia is concerned, you chose the wrong country, buddy ;):) (check out ])] 02:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Why are you damaging the Georgia article? why don't you go ahead and edit your country's article. Obviously you are not an expert about Georgia and trying to disrespect the country. Georgia is southwest to Europe in the Caucasus, which is most commonly referred as Europe, but we will keep the current wording due to the fact that not all sources say that Georgia is located in Europe. So, just chill you, aren't you getting tired of this crap. I've gotta bunch of papers due this week and I don't have time to work on the article now, but I plan to expand the culture section next week. ] 03:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Georgia article== | |||
| Hi Corticopia. If you plan to edit ] you are very wellcomed. Would you also be interested in the economy section? Cheers ] 09:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I am not sure if you convinced my in your knowledgeability] 14:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Well politically Georiga is a member of several European organizations, this can be easily referenced. As for cultural Europe, in fact this a rather abstract notion. Say Georgians consider themselves European, but how can I cite that? ] 09:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Yeah, that was I am Georgian and therefore I am European word of ] at the Council of Europe . Maybe I'll be able to find something in that spirit if that'll do. ] 09:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Proposed naming conventions for Republic of Macedonia== | |||
| Hi Corticopia, | |||
| I'd be grateful if you could have a look at ], which is intended to establish a consistent basis for naming RoM-related articles across Misplaced Pages. I'd appreciate your views on it. -- ] 19:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Certainly "Ireland" does not only refer to ], but that's not what that formatting is meant to imply, in fact the guideline that says to format it the way I did (]) says to do it because "it is very unlikely that this well-known meaning is what they are looking for, it should not be mixed in with the other links". ] 20:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Ok, I think I see your point, however, if you think it's about as likely that when someone types in Ireland they're looking for ] as the island; that's fine, I don't necissarily disagree with you, but if that is the case than ] should redirect to ]. ] 21:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **I glanced at the talk page and my eyes glazed over before I get very far into the pages of discussion. I'm actually quite apathetic to any disputes about Ireland. Since I care too little to read through it and make an informed decision, let me instead present a scenario to you for you to decide. If on the page for a band there is a lot of argument about the genre the band is in, and finally the consensus (or near consensus) wins out that the band is jazz and not funk, then any place that refers to it should list what the article says. So, if the band is called apple, then the apple disambig page should say a jazz, even if the dissenting vote of the original discussion is the one making the edit. My overly drawn out point being, if you think you're making the right decision I'm not going to argue anymore, but be careful not to violate any consensus at the primary topic. ] 21:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == OK == | |||
| I blocked him. I blocked his sockpuppet. I warned him. Can you please stop editing your message on my talk page? I'm trying to work, and every two minutes I get a "you have new messages banner" because you keep copyediting what you already wrote. It's fine, you can leave it as it is. Thanks. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Locator maps == | |||
| Just curious - why did you make edit? ''']]]''' <sup><nowiki>]<nowiki>]</nowiki></sup> <small> 14.05.07 0256 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :I have no objection - other than people looking at a country from a hemisphere away might not be able to figure out a country's location immediately - but I'd suggest starting a discussion someplace, since this promises to be a ''very large'' undertaking. ''']]]''' <sup><nowiki>]<nowiki>]</nowiki></sup> <small> 14.05.07 0342 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::That might be best, but I'd say it's at your discretion. I don't any editors chomping at the bit to get the maps back yet, at any rate (but maybe it's just because the East Coast editors haven't woken up yet :p). ''']]]''' <sup><nowiki>]<nowiki>]</nowiki></sup> <small> 14.05.07 0357 (UTC)</small> | |||
| == Georgia == | |||
| ] You are in danger of violating the ]{{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{1|}}}|  on ]}}. Please cease further reverts or you may be ] from editing. <!-- Template:3RR4 --> --''']''' <sup>]</sup> 16:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == AlexCovarrubias == | |||
| I've openned a ] on user '''AlexCovarrubias''' as he continues to violate Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. I would like your support to stop his disruptive edits and uncivil behavior, if you agree please sign the request. Thank you. ] 02:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Mediation== | |||
| Would you be interested in being a third party to mediate in the debate concerning the use of the Census Bureau (INEGI) statistics vs. the ] own statistics of number of believers in Mexico? ]. --] 02:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, I requested formal mediation, but the procedure in Misplaced Pages, besides being extremely bureaucratic in my opinion, it also requires all parties to sign the request seven days after it is filed. If one party (of many) does not sign it, the request for mediation is denied. As you might expect, parties with no intention of having their opinions formally reviewed by external editors, or who afraid their arguments won't stand the review, simply ignore the request and do not sign it. I am afraid this might be the case, since the other party involved has not signed it, even though I have asked him to do so twice, yet, he has continued to edit other articles. | |||
| :So, to make the long story short, I would appreciate if you could simply read the debate and give your opinion, so that you could help us sort things out, even if the request for mediation is never signed by the other party. | |||
| :--] 17:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == South America == | |||
| {| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}};" | |||
| |rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ] | |||
| |rowspan="2" | | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Resilient Barnstar''' | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For being willing to learn and grow as a Wikipedian, with particular improvement in avoiding edit warring through better communication with other users, I award you this barnstar. No matter what happens with the South America article, well thought-out comments like show your greater willingness to talk things through, and it is appreciated. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| == Blocked == | |||
| You have been blocked for the persistent edit warring at ]. It has been going on for weeks, and you seem to consistently make 3 reverts in a day to an article. ] is not an entitlement to reverts: you need to engage in good faith ] as well. You made not a single edit to the article's talk page today until ''after'' reaching three reverts, and that it unacceptable. This is your fifth block for edit warring, which demonstrates a serious problem with your behavior. You need to seriously reconsider your approach to editing, if you would like to continue doing so. ]·] 21:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :This is ridiculous: I have merely restored content -- and only thrice today -- that has been discussed and consensually agreed upon and stable since the instigating editor was blocked. And upon his revert, he restores this content without merely a peep? Why should I reiterate comments on the talk page when they were already made scant days ago? And how can editors -- me -- possibly have time to make other edits to the article when we're having to fend off restorations of subjective content? Do I stutter? Anyhow, your commentary is noted, but I suggest you refrain my condescendingly commenting on my behaviour, as I volunteer as you do; if anything, Misplaced Pages seriously needs to reconsider its approach to content addition. ] 21:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{unblock reviewed|1=see above|decline=I feel bad that this happened immediately after I gave you a barnstar for improvement, but I do have to stand by Dmcdevit on this one. I didn't realize the extent of the edit warring. I'm sorry, and I hope after your block expires that barnstar will be a reminder of the ''right'' way to get things done. Discuss ''instead'' of reverting, not in addition to it. — ] <sup>]</sup> 21:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)}} | |||
| :Well, frankly, given all of this, I will find better things to do with my time hereafter. Au revoir. ] 21:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Uhh == | |||
| I guess ya know how I feel right now. :D | |||
| I was going to update '''all''' the others to the 2007 estimate, but ya didn't let me. ;0) | |||
| However I '''cannot''' do that for the colonies! Do you have a solution? --] 21:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==''Defender of Encyclopedism''== | |||
| ] | |||
| ==Armenia== | |||
| Check the archives, I have a long history of trying to remove all the factual distortions in that article. As do many others before me. That article and related articles have been hijacked by a well organized ring of POV pushers. They do nothing but hover over that article 24/7 and make sure any hint of objectivity is removed. The Armenian government officially places Armenia in Asia Minor, as does every reference book on Earth. So take some consolation in that. Good Luck --] 17:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Sorry, but I did not understand what did you wanted to say. If you worry about my revert on Armenia, I did it solely because it reverted other thing too, about Armenian civilization, about which I had to war on the talk page almost one week. ] 03:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| In fact more than two weeks. ] 03:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I said what was '''the only''' reseaon for my rv. You could have readded you things without rving mine too. ] 03:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| And I do not know were does this tone come from. As you can see from the Armenia talk page I am not happy with that intro too. ] 03:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Where did you go now? Be contructive. ] 04:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I was insisting on excluding Armenian civilization from the lead section. Please write at the bottom of my talk page. Cheers ] 03:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Thats ok. I agree wikipedia can be nerve-racking sometimes. ] 03:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I see. | |||
| :I have to go now. ] 03:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==The Case for 3 Region Asia== | |||
| You keep on reverting the ] article claiming that I am acting due to POV or outside of consensus. I have some news for you.----<sup><i><font color="darkslateblue">]</font></i></sup><font color="purple">]</font> 02:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Your failed argument based on misunderstanding of policy: ]. You think that ] overrides]. You try to make the issue boil down to a simple vote, but ] says that "Foundation Issues" are an exception. Foundation Issues include ], so ] does not override ] or any other foundation policies.----<sup><i><font color="darkslateblue">]</font></i></sup><font color="purple">]</font> 02:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Your failed argument based on misunderstanding of policy: ]. You like to deride others by claiming they are "POV pushing". The ] actually encourages the push for multiple notable POVs. The "N" in "NPOV" stands for neutral POV. It does stand for "no" POV.----<sup><i><font color="darkslateblue">]</font></i></sup><font color="purple">]</font> 02:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I have to state the argument for my version of the article which you have given no policy-based objections.----<sup><i><font color="darkslateblue">]</font></i></sup><font color="purple">]</font> 02:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ] says that articles should be constrained to their topic and not include information that is vaguely related to their topic. The culture, religion, notable individuals, economy section is off topic, because they all deal with the ] not the continent of Asia. Unlike a nation, Asia does not have an economy; it has many nations within it that have economies. The same argument goes for culture and religion. Surely, the notable individuals section is clearly within the subject matter of Asian people and not hte continent.------<sup><i><font color="darkslateblue">]</font></i></sup><font color="purple">]</font> 02:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ] says that articles should maintain ], but give greater weight to the common POVs. For example, it says that at one time the greater POV would have gone to the flat Earth theory, but now it goes to the round Earth theory. Similarly, the definition of Asia which includes the Arabian peninsula is no longer the majority opinion world-wide. It used to be the majority opinion in medieval times when Europe labeled everything east and south of it as Asia. The US government considers them to be separate regions for foreign policy matters. For policy matters, the US sees an Islamic terrorist Middle East and a peaceful Asia. The other current source is sociologist US-citizen Paul Thomas Welty (1984) who claims that the Middle East is not part of Asia. The current Duke University sociologist US-citizen Sri Devi Menon source on page 70 says that ''currently'' the US considers the Middle East to not be part of Asia. ] demands that if your POV is a notable minority, then it can be attributed to a notable critic. The US and two sociologists are notable, so the three region POV meets the requirement of "significant minority". It may also meet the reguirement of being majority viewpont. To be a majority viewpoint the POV must be present in commonly-accepted reference materials. Now, I have looked and I have not found the 3-region POV in most encyclopedias-- except one. {{cquote|"Asia." <u>The Funk & Wagnalls New Encyclopedia.</u> Rand McNally, USA: 1983. pp.416}} | |||
| This source says there are three POVs on Asia. It says that geographers consider Eurasia to be the true continent. It says by region Asia divides into 6 regions: Soviet Asia, East Asia, Central Asia, Southwest Asia, South Asia and Southeast Asia. It says that there are two "''realms''" that which is "''Asian in culture''" and that which is "''not''". It lists East, Southeast, and South Asia as the cultural Asia. Another acceptable reference material are scholarly books. I have found one. | |||
| {{cquote|Nelson, Jane, et al. The World's Great Religions:Volume 1: Religions of the East. Time Incorporated, New York: 1957. pp.62}} | |||
| In this book the authors show a map which they label "Asia". This "Asia" only includes East, Southeast and South Asia. It appears that the 3 region POV clearly meets the requirements of a significant minority and I also feel that it meets the tougher requirements of a majority. Consequently, there should be a change in this article. There should be no maps in the title unless they express both views and the maps in the body should express both views.------<sup><i><font color="darkslateblue">]</font></i></sup><font color="purple">]</font> 02:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I have found the exact quote where sociologist Paul Thomas Welty says the definition of Asia.----<sup><i><font color="darkslateblue">]</font></i></sup><font color="purple">]</font> 22:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{cquote|"Welty, Paul Thomas. <u>The Asians Their Evolving Heritage Sixth Edition.</u> New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1984. ISBN 0-06-047001-1}} | |||
| {{cquote|The region called Asia in this book stretches from Pakistan on the west to Japan on the east and from the northern borders of China to the southernmost boundaries of Indonesia. Within these borders are included the countries and territories fo India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka (Ceylon), the People's Republic of China (Mainland), The Republic of China (Taiwan), North Korea, South Korea, Japan, The Mongolian People's Republic, Burma, Thailand, Kampuchea (Cambodia), Laos, Vietnam, Malaysia, Philippines, Indonesia, Nepal Bhutan, Brunei, Singapore, Hong Kong, Macao, and the Maldive Islands, (Welty, pp. 21}} | |||
| ==Your Profanity== | |||
| Your edits on and involve profanity which is against ]----<sup><i><font color="darkslateblue">]</font></i></sup><font color="purple">]</font> 02:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == "unencyclopedc syntax" == | |||
| Can you explain what you mean? --] (]|]) 00:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Economy Georgia== | |||
| You are wellcomed to take part in the voting on ] ] 01:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==FYI== | |||
| You should be aware of ]. Just a heads-up! ]<font color="FF8800">]</font> 18:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I've looked at the complaints people have made there, and they are correct to say that you have been ]. Please stop using terms like "shit-kicking", even if you censor it (it still makes the same point, whether the "i" is there or not), and don't call other editors names. Remember that uncivil users can be blocked. There have also been allegations of you gaming ], I haven't determined if these are correct or not. At any rate, just a reminder that the 3RR is not an entitlement to three reverts per day. Thanks. ] ] 00:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, that is an opinion as well as any. I will not refrain from calling them as I see them. Nor are 3RR or calls of incivility entitlements for other editors to insinuate substandard text/content onto articles. Where does one begin? Well, how about ] (see ]). Or how about ] who (with possible article ownership issues) continues to remove long-standing citations from the lead of ], amidst misrepresentation of consensus, and who even another editor indicated on ] as essentially calling me names and being perjorative. I can go on but will not: all of these editorial inequities have been thoroughly discussed on relevant talk pages. This is not an attempt to deflect responsibility, but editors have their own motivations for commenting and I really have better things to do than to mince words or regurgitate for this fruitless exercise. ] 05:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :While some of the condemnations of you have been rather gratuitous, you may want to take the advice not to let people egg you on so much to heart. Cheers ]<font color="FF8800">]</font> 16:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == 3RR warning == | |||
| Note, a revert does not mean going back to the same version again. From ]: | |||
| :"''An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time.''" | |||
| Another revert and you will have crossed the 3RR limit. Regards, -- ] 03:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, things change, and the article has gone through a boat-load of changes since it was featured; but what makes your opinion of what is needed to be changed overrule the opinions the other editors who are actively involved in the article. Regards, -- ] 03:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Blocked == | |||
| You have been blocked for one month, for ''continuing'' the edit warring, with three reverts in ''seventeen minutes'' at . As noted at ] you have been repeatedly warring and gaming 3RR with three reverts daily, and you last block for a week did not change a thing, it seems. You must pursue ] in the future. ]·] 04:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Ah well -- enjoy your summer. ] 17:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | |||