Due to the particular events surrounding Bogdanov Affair, I have to ask you to refrain from editing this article. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Regarding_The_Bogdanov_Affair/Proposed_decision for more informations. Thank you. Rama 08:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

WHY ? Because I am a newbie ? Nobody new can edit ?
Marc Perroud 08:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
The article is temporarily closed to users who edit only or mainly this article. Also, you edits touch to a part of the article which was hotly debated in the past.
"Debated" ? Really ? I saw some different versions on the article, but no debat ! Do you have a link ?
Thank you in advance
Marc Perroud 10:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
I suggest that you find insterest in some other article for the moment being. Thank you for your understanding. Rama 10:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

This account is banned

edit
  This account has been blocked as per the Arbitration Committee injunction on editors externally involved in the Bogdanov Affair [1]
All user accounts used by participants in the external controversy (involving the Bogdanov Affair) are banned from Wikipedia pending resolution of this matter. The criteria for determining external involvement shall be a review of their edit history, it being presumed that if the vast majority of their edits were to the Bogdanov Affair and related pages such as this arbitration that they are not Wikipedia editors but persons involved in the external dispute. This group includes: YBM (talk · contribs), XAL (talk · contribs), ProfesseurYIN (talk · contribs), Igor B. (talk · contribs), CatherineV (talk · contribs), 82.123.187.53 (talk · contribs). Laurence67 (talk · contribs), EE Guy (talk · contribs), 82.123.46.149 (talk · contribs), 82.123.57.232 (talk · contribs), Luis A. (talk · contribs) and all others who meet the criteria. Rbj (talk · contribs), a regular Wikipedia editor, and Ze miguel (talk · contribs), a new editor who has edited other areas, are banned from editing Bogdanov Affair, pending resolution of this matter. A less restrictive injunction [2] is under consideration and may replace the total bans.

--NicholasTurnbull | (talk) (e-mail) (cabal) 15:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)Reply