Misplaced Pages

DON'T BE OFFENSIVE! If you agree, please leave a message peacefully! Thanks. By the way, vandalism creates spiritual turbulence, resulting in misfortune.

BABEL
This user contributes to Wikimedia Commons. 40,000 This user has over 40,000 edits on the English Misplaced Pages.
This user participates in Pages needing translation into English. This user maintains a strict policy advising against all personal attacks. This user is a participant of WikiProject Countering systemic bias.
This user is a participant in WikiProject Morocco. This user is a member of WikiProject Military history. This user is a participant in WikiProject Spain.
This user is able to contribute with an advanced level of English. اللغة الام لهذا المستخدم هي العربية. Cet utilisateur parle français à un niveau comparable à la langue maternelle.
Este usario puede contribuir con un nivel avanzado en Español. Ĉi tiu uzanto povas komuniki per baza nivelo de Esperanto. Questo utente può contribuire con un italiano di livello semplice.
This user is Moroccan. ind This user is politically independent. This user is a Citizen of the World (Terra, ⊕).
C# This user can program in C#. 33 This user is 33 years old. This user BOINCs.
This user supports moral equality amongst great apes and humans. This user is car-free. This user owns one or more Siamese cats.

Older discussions are found here:

Ali Sina: Not a ballot?

You left this notice there that its not a vote: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ali_Sina_%282nd_nomination%29 Why not? Usually this kind of stuff is voting forum, right? Thats how its been in the past. Why not now? I've removed the notice.--Matt57 17:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Matt. I just put the tag to slow down the anon multiple voting (sockpuppeting) and users' first edits. If you don't see its necesity than that's fine w/ me. Cheers -- Szvest Ω 17:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Although the tag seems innocent, its misleading when implemented becayse it then said "this is not a ballot" which was not true so I had removed it. --Matt57 03:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Arabic music

I can't see all that much which needs work on the article (although there was a sentence or two which I fiddled around with). That said, I'm more just a fan of the music rather than someone who can write academically about it, so I might've missed the entire point of the page. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello! I'm afraid I don't know enough about Arabic music to be of assistance. Sorry! --Estr4ng3d 13:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Dealing with Vandals

You're a system admin so I thought I'd ask you what to do in this (simple) scenario:

1. User registers and vandalizes the page. Deletes or adds stuff without discussion. Adds stuff that is POV and deletes facts or stuff that is NPOV (alright, the page is Ali Sina, you might have guessed)
2. Revert wars continue

Is there any end to this? How can Misplaced Pages give so much power to anyone who has an agenda? If they will never agree to a consensus, how can this be stopped? The 3RR rule does nothing. I dont see any solution for this under current mechanisms Misplaced Pages has for dealing with this (which is basically only the 3RR rule). What I believe is that, for controversial articles, there should be a quick ban policy for new users who introduce changes without discussion and keep reverting the changes. This is the only solution I see. What do you think is the way to deal with this problem? Clearly this will remain an ongoing problem.--Matt57 03:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Matt. My modest experience in Misplaced Pages tells me that the issue is not that simple as it appears. It is true that removing content w/o discussion is considered vandalism but there's always a context covering that. In the case of Ali Sina, the removal of the content is part of:

• Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons - It is important to read this official policy. It is very hard to apply that to our case as there is a dispute whether Ali is a real person or not. But at least we can assume he is.

• Bullying or Stubbornness

Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them on an article's talk page, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is regrettable — you may wish to see our dispute resolution pages to get help. However, it is not vandalism.

I would suggest you assume good faith and that you invite the IP to discuss his reverts on the talk page. If the user doesn't want to do so than we can drop the assumption of good faith and start considering that as pure vandalism.

Last important thing. Personally, i believe in the freedom of editing in wikipedia though i am really against IP editing. Many editors and admins have been debating this very hard before at the village pump but still there is no serious concensus on that. YOu could prepare a draft or a proposal and discuss it at the Misplaced Pages:village pump (proposals). I'd love to participate on that. -- Szvest Ω 18:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

IP editing wasnt my concern in this issue. I'm not against it as well as long as they're not doing anything wrong. If they are are, they should be banned more ruthlessly than a username. Also the fact that the article is on Ali Sina, doesnt matter. It can be an article which can have controversial differing views (Judaism, or anything e.g.) See anyone can get a username and be a 'vandal' like that too. The issue is clear:

• user registers
• keeps deleting stuff from an article without discussion, and keeps reverting to his own version.

How is this not vandalism? What I mean to say - no user who is new should be allowed to delete/add stuff to an article without discussion. OR, at the least, they should NOT be allowed to keep reverting to their own versions which means, they're really not willing to discuss. Should we allow anyone like that to start an edit war? You might have seen my comment in Zakir Naik about how utterly wrong it was for someone to nominate that article for deletion, when the TWENTY days ago it had been nominated and the result was a Keep. There was no need for that AFD. It should have been removed and the nominator should have been warned for disruptive behavior. When Misplaced Pages's policies are defective regarding this - I find it no surprise that they are defective regarding OTHER issues as well, such as: Allowing new users to vandalize an article. If someone keeps reverting to their own version of the article, without discussion - that is vandalism. What else is this? What should be present is that, for controversial articles, new users who do any kind of editing with disapproval from older editors should be banned. If their changes have been reverted once with discussion from the old users and they still keep reverting, they should be banned. They should discuss the changes and get a consensus before introducing anything new in the article. If this is not done, then a good article can get damaged easily (as is the case with Ali Sina right now). I have made attempts to discuss changes with that editor and others have as well - but to no avail. The fact that this behavior is allowed to persist on Misplaced Pages, shows there's a defect in the policy. Imagine me going into Christianity and introducing my POV, deleting stuff, and reverting the reverts endlessly without discussion. I am wrong in doing that, right? Yet, I am allowed to continue to edit and damage the article and frustrate other editors. Once you agree that this should not be allowed to happen and that, somehow there should be a mechanism to prevent this (otherwise it will happen every 10 days when a new POV editor comes along to terrorise an article), I could think about what could be done. I am not making it difficult for new users to edit. I'm only asking that they discuss the changes, after their edit has been reverted by other editors once. This should be a policy. Requesting for Mediation and stuff - that takes long, right? And I cant request the mediation every 10 days a new POV editor comes. There should be a quicker mechanism. Can dispute resolution deal with the situation where a new POV editor comes to damage the article every now and then? I dont see why there should be a need for a dispute resolution if a vandal is editing the article without discussion and reverting the changes 10 times, when he should simply be banned for this juvenile uncivil behavior.

The new policy I'm suggesting is that, if a user's changes are reverted more than once, they HAVE to discuss and get a consensus before editing the article. If they dont discuss and revert again, they should be warned and then ultimately banned from editing. This is the new policy I suggest. Do you see anything wrong with this proposed new policy? The difficult of its implementation is something that can be worked on but I see this as the only quick way a disruptive vandal with malicious or POV intent can be shot dead in their tracks, and we know that good civil editors always discuss on a controversial change. Its the uncivil POV editors who keep reverting without discussion, who I'm trying to target. I mean, otherwise this is going to continue and articles will keep getting damaged. So, do you agree that new users should not be allowed to add anything controversial to an article without discussion? --Matt57 14:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Fayssal, the same issue is being faced by everyone, e.g. on BhaiSaab's talk page here. You see this is a common problem present everywhere. It will be forever present on articles which are controversial. There's got to be some better way of dealing with this. I thought I'd discuss this with you first and hear your opinions since you're an administrator. I commend administrative people's dedication to Misplaced Pages. I can see the amount of time and work that you guys put in. --Matt57 04:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

An even bigger and more serous edit-war phenomenon is seen here. There has to be a way to prevent edit wars.--Matt57 07:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Re Criticism of the Qur'an. Hopefully, admin Tom harrison whom i trust too much protected the article. I hope involved parties discuss the issues at the talk page. The point can be synthetized as per admin Grenavitar commented earlier:

'anti-Muslim' leaning editors want to point out these 'bad' things of the past and essentialize them as a constant of Islamic history. Our 'Muslim' leaning editors want to lessen or rationalize these views. Neither way works and it is very difficult to present this in a neutral light. We aren't a scholarly paper that can have a thesis and we aren't a paper encyclopedia which only covers the basics (which makes it much easier).

I've edited islam-related articles before but w/ the persistent edit warring between the two sides described above i decided to slow down my contributions re to those articles. I've been accused of being anti-semitic asshole and a member of the anti-Zionist cabal by wikipediareview.com gurus, a wikifascist by Daniel Brandt. However, i am still optimistic that wikipedia would still fight those kind of attitudes as i commented once at pbs.org/mediashift.

Vandalism is easy to spot and as i said earlier above, if the IP doesn't want to discuss than i'll block him personally. The problem is not about that kind of vandalism but the attitude of a few wikipedians. I can't just block those established users but there's a somehow long process that admins including myself can follow (i.e Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration, etc.). Feel free to contact me anytime you need help. Cheers -- Szvest Ω 15:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

<indent reset> Fayssal, thanks for your reply. You wrote: "somehow long process that admins including myself can follow". Thats precisely my point. On Controversial articles like Islam-critical stuff, edit warring goes on an hourly basis. The RFC is a long process and is unsuitable for dealing with this situation - thats my main point. Why does edit warring happen? Because people revert other editors stuff without discussion. One solution I believe could be: there could be a small group of administrators or sub-admins (e.g) that would ban anyone who reverts without discussion and - resolve the disputes on the Talk page so people can put in stuff after some consensus has been reached on how to edit the article with a NPOV. This is the only way I can see that criticism of Islam articles can escape edit warring. In any case, there's no mechanism to deal with the constant edit-warring that goes on in any controversial article (not just Islam). Once we realize that RFC is unable to deal with constant edit-warring, we can think about some new mechanism to prevent these disputes and deal with them quicker. I dont know whats the best solution, but clearly, the current mechanisms or policies we have here dont prevent edit-warring and are defective. And its only controversial articles that need this attention. --Matt57 00:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I saw this nice article on the web somewhere which made the point I want to make:

"The result of Misplaced Pages's open editing system is predictable: Most contributors provide useful material, while a small number of ``trolls repeatedly deface the encyclopedia. Misplaced Pages is also plagued by endless ``revert wars, where dueling groups keep reversing each other's changes to controversial articles. This undermines the credibility of Misplaced Pages, which now offers an unprecedented 857,000 articles in English, along with versions in more than 100 other languages. ... Wales should issue a royal decree moving Misplaced Pages to a ``gatekeeper model, borrowed from successful open-source software projects such as the Linux operating system and the Firefox browser. These projects are administered by networks of trusted volunteers who carefully review additions and changes before they are made, and there's a hierarchy to resolve disputes. "

Thats what goes on. Interesting. Thats right, isnt it? Sorry I realize you must be very busy due to being an admin, I hope I'm not taking much of your time but this is interesting to share with. I doubt this system in Misplaced Pages that makes it so easy for trolls to do their stuff and revert-wars to happen will change anytime soon.--Matt57 05:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Spanish Gibraltarians

Hi faysal, was the deletion of this article lawful? I thought a "rough consensus was necessary. The clearly isnt one.

cheers.--Burgas00 17:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hola Burgas. Mejor presentas el caso al noticeboard/incidents. -- Szvest Ω 18:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

No si tampoco voy seguir dale que te pego. Tan solo me ha sorprendido. Es normal?--Burgas00 18:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Personalmente no lo veo normal y por eso te sugiero que el caso pase por el noticeboard. -- Szvest Ω 18:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Se me ha olvidado como se hacia... No lo podrias poner tu, please?? Es que como yo cree la pagina tengo poca credibilidad. Tu siendo un administrator y tal...;-) --Burgas00 18:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

No hay problemas pero lo haria mañana como tengo que ir offline dentro de poco. -- Szvest Ω 18:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hola Faysal!! Pusiste ya el articulo este en el incident noticeboard? Un Saludo! --Burgas00 15:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Ya está allí. -- Szvest Ω 16:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hola!!! Puedes dar tu voto aqui, porfa? http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_December_4#Spanish_Gibraltarians Thanks, Fayssal!--Burgas00 16:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments needed!!!

We need your comments on the interpretation of WP:RS at Talk:Criticism_of_the_Qur'an#Answering_Islam_and_Faithfreedom.org_website. A response will be highly appreciated. Cheers! TruthSpreader 14:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Commented there w/ my 2¢. -- Szvest Ω 15:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

My 2¢

IMHO, websites such as answering Islam, answering Christianity, answering my grandma, faithfreedom, faithXyz etc are websites w/ an agenda. When there's an agenda, there's a POV. -- Szvest Ω 15:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

But whats you analysis in the light of WP:RS policy for Partisan and extremist websites; can these be used to criticize Islam or Christianity, when policy says that they can only be used as primary source to describe them and their activities. TruthSpreader 15:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

What i commented above doesn't contradict what you just said truthspreader. Maybe it is an indepth interpretation from myself. Instead of being harsh on implementing the policy i tried to be more explicit hoping editors understand better the guideline. According to the RS, Partisan and extremist websites should be treated with caution and should be used only as primary sources; that is, they should only be used in articles about those organizations or individuals and their activities, and even then should be used with caution. This is what the guideline states and i wanted it to be more clearer. It should be noted also that a guideline is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. In our case, common sense tells us that a website w/ an agenda is a website w/ POV. -- Szvest Ω 16:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Well the article goes on is a very un-encyclopediac way. May be we should put peer review template or something like that . We have all stuff that quran never says but people claim it does in that article, & these people base their clams on english translations that dont even come with the context of revelation. Unless we have a clearcut guideline as to what makes a critic & what makes a criticism , & that too being backed by a few interested admins, it gonna go on. Thanks . F.a.y. 20:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

User:DAde insta-block

Hello Svzest, when you see the type of vandalism to WP:ISLAM that you reverted here, if you would just block the IP for 48 hours or so... if it starts 84.xxx... that's just the indef. blocked User:DAde. Thanks. (→Netscott) 18:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I just thought that the IP is being used by innocent people but i'll do next time as we got no other option. -- Szvest Ω 10:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your support with my RfA. My nomination succeeded and I have joined the admin ranks. I appreciate your support. Thanks again! =) -- Gogo Dodo 22:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

I would like to take the time to thank you for voting in my unsuccessful RFA. Your Support vote really meant a lot to me. Have a nice day!-- Chris is me 13:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

sprotect request

Hi. You {{sprotected}} Universal Image Format (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) once before and now it is again having anything negative being ripped out by an IP claiming "vandalism." Would you mind stopping by and taking a peek? Thanx. — RevRagnarok 00:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protected. Left a message at the talk page. -- Szvest Ω 10:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanx. — RevRagnarok 11:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Ali Sina

Szvest, being that you and I have both been involved with this article I thought you should be aware of this DrV about it. See you. (→Netscott) 04:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Gave my opinion there. -- Szvest Ω 10:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

block request

ADVERT-tagging based on undiscussible & stupid argumentation

YOU {{sprotected}} Universal Image Format (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) once again ;-( WITHOUT checking RevRagnarok undiscussible & stupid argumentation ;--((( and stopping RevRagnarok stupid behaviour - therefore i'll go further to advert-tag ALL wiki-articles they fit into this undiscussible & stupid argumentation-scheme!unsigned comment by 80.218.7.212

Hi anon. The removal of stuff (be them tags or edits) w/o discussion and concensus on talk pages is not how stuff works here. All i see is that you avoid discussing and reaching a concensus. You mainly revert and that's it. I'd suggest you create an account as the rest of the editors on the article and relax. You can conveince editors of your thoughts but failing to discuss that wouldn't work. THink about that. Cheers -- Szvest Ω 10:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

One more important thing. If you really believe that there were stupid argumentations than try Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment. That is how it works. -- Szvest Ω 10:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

after triggering you explicitly to RevRagnarok's NONsense & STUPID arguments with one word Bullshit i must determine you do NOT see RevRagnarok's Bullshit and my given answers, therefore it doesn't make sense to open a case at WP:RfC... 80.218.7.212 15:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that you still do not present arguments apart from using bold format to what you call nonsense & stupid arguments. Indeed RfC is the right place for your case 'till this moment. -- Szvest Ω 15:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

if YOU really do NOT see RevRagnarok's Bullshit and my given answers, then indeed it doesn't make sense to open a case at WP:RfC... 194.230.146.2 17:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

First, w/ whom i am talking to? Who proves that you are the same editor as 80.218.7.212? A Request for CheckUser may give some answers to this same question and that may lead to a block. So please, sign up for god's sake.

Second, Which given answers you pretend you have given me so far? Develop your ideas and arguments so contributors would understand what they are.

Third, i am just an administrator and would not enter or decide the RfC outcome. So, yes, still the best option is to refer to RfC. Otherwise, it would become trolling as per WP:TROLL. -- Szvest Ω 18:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Spanish Gibraltarians again...

Hola!!! Puedes dar tu voto aqui, porfa? http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_December_4#Spanish_Gibraltarians Thanks, Fayssal!--Burgas00 16:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Withdrawn

I appreciate your support, but have decided to withdraw from consideration for a position as an arbitrator. The community has overwhelming found me to be too controversial to hold that position. Thanks again for your support.--MONGO 19:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Ali Sina

You removed Ali Sina's name from articles citing WP:WEB, which starts with: "This page gives some rough guidelines which most Misplaced Pages editors use to decide if any form of web-specific content, being either the content of a website or the specific website itself should have an article on Misplaced Pages." How does WP:WEB provide you with justification for removing Ali Sina's name from articles? Arrow740 20:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you kiddin' me? I'll assume good faith and consider this message a mistake from your part and not a kindav trollish behaviour. I haven't removed anything. -- Szvest Ω 10:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

My mistake, sorry. You were removing something else while a revert war was going on. Arrow740 18:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Abdelhamid Kermali

I saw the article you created on Kermali. Just wanted to point out (as I did in the discussion section of the page you created) that he did not refuse Zidane. That story is a myth and definitely not true. Zidane never tried out for the Algerian team and was never contacted by the team either. I can find you links to confirm this if you want. So please change the info. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TonyStarks (talk • contribs) 01:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

I am not sure whether it is true or false but i have a reference . If you have the reference to the interviews please bring it. Cheers -- Szvest 15:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Some links:

Interview of Zidane with Algerian sports paper Le Buteur -> http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/7936/120nt1.jpg Interview with Fathi Chabel who was a teammate of Zidane at AS Cannes when Zidane was only 17. Fathi was already in the national team and he recommended Zidane but the Algerian FA never called him up -> http://forum.dzfoot.com/viewtopic.php?p=686744#686744 TonyStarks 05:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi tony. I am interested to know the exact url of this . -- Szvest 10:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Your RFM

I have volunteered to mediate your case. I am not a member of the Mediation Committee, but have some experience conducting mediations. I'll only do so, of course, if all the parties consent. Please indicate on the mediation page whether you agree or not. Cheers, JCO312 00:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks anyway JCO312. -- Szvest 16:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Just for the sake of finality, I take it that you aren't agreeing to have me mediate this dispute. If this is the case, could you indicate so on the Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Reforms under Islam (610-661) page so that another mediator can take it. Thanks, JCO312 19:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the quick semi-protection of Color blindness‎!--Ronz 16:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Welkies. Anytime. -- Szvest 16:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Why I was blocked

In fact, my blocks were not for the same reason. One, a year ago, was at the end of the Ultramarine affair, and was a quite broad interpretation of the arbcom decision on the matter, which dealt with our relations on two specific articles. Stifle blocked both of us for a minimal time for our controversy on one line of a third article, as a warning. We had both avoided 3RR, and I think we were both surprised.

The other was sheer carelessness; I was dealing with a user who had in fact violated 3RR, and lost count, rather producing an alternate text, or going to AN3 myself. Septentrionalis 18:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Changed from neutral to support. -- Szvest 19:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Bonjour

Bonjour, j'ai vu que tu est marocain et comme tu parles français je demandais (c'est peut-être indiscret :]) tu viens d'où au Maroc, ou plus directement Berbère ou pas :] . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.121.65.118 (talk) 23:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Tétouan. -- Szvest 10:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Salut

Hello, Im writing you, because I want know, that happents in this cases?

If any user, insunt me call me vandal en tres time the same day, and if I insult somebody with racist insult?

What`s the differents, to block somebody?Bokpasa 23:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

For personal attacks → Misplaced Pages:Personal attack intervention noticeboard.

Please sign your comment using the 4 tildes. Cheers. -- Szvest 09:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Granada

¡Hola, Fayssal! Ya he visto tus aportaciones con la Casa del Castril y el Museo Arqueológico. La nueva categoría se llenará en breve, y si no, tranquilo, que algún artículo nuevo seguro que cae. :-) Un afectuoso saludo,--Garcilaso 11:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Gracias amigo. -- Szvest 11:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hola otra vez, me acabo de dar cuenta de una cosa: corrígeme si me equivoco, he creído entender que tanto en Commons como en la Misplaced Pages inglesa, cuando se categoriza como "Monuments", se refieren a fuentes, estatuas, mausoleos...y cuando se refieren a edificios utilizan "Buildings and structures". ¿Podría ser adecuado renombrar "Category:Monuments in Granada" a "Category:Buildings and structures in Granada"?--Garcilaso 12:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

En el articulo Monument, edificios estan considerados como monumentos. Pero seria mejor usar el Category:Buildings and structures in Granada y eliminar la original. Gracias por la nota. -- Szvest 12:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Userpage

I've just removed the content from your userpage as per What can I not have on my user page?. Please do not reinsert it again. Cheers -- Szvest 15:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

What am I not allowed to have this on my user page? walaw?Embargo 16:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I am going to add quotes, as it is not me who said this. Embargo 16:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do not fight against wikipedia rules. -- Szvest 16:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do not tell me what to do with my userpage. Please do not provoke me. Embargo 19:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Note that i've been acting gently with you. Please also note that i am an admin and you are not entitled to have provocative content on your userpage as per What can I not have on my user page?. Please behave and this would be your last warning. -- Szvest 19:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Block o User:Embargo

The technical issues of this block, that is the time of last update to last warning do seem in conflict, can you review and respond on the users talk. I'm inclined to give the benefit of the doubt, though would likely endorse any blocks for future behaviour of a similar nature. --pgk 22:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)