Thetruthnow2012
Welcome
edit
|
Dispute resolution
editHi, I've named you as an involved user at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Golden Triangle (UK universities). - Yk3 talk ~ contrib 01:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello. I noticed you created another posting on the dispute resolution noticeboard for this issue, but it's already an open issue. I'd advised you to comment on the already open thread. Thanks. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 02:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
3-Revert Rule Warning
editYou appear to be currently engaged in an edit war on the article Golden Triangle (UK universities). You should be made aware that Wikipedia's policy against edit warring includes a strict rule—the 3-revert rule (3RR)—which prohibits an editor from reverting any other editors' contributions to a single article more than 3 times within any 24-hour period. You have already violated this rule on the above-mentioned article (first revert, 11:37, July 4th; second revert; third revert; fourth revert; fifth revert, 00:15,July 5th). If you continue to edit war you may be reported to the edit warring noticeboard, which is likely to result in your being blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Since your edits have been disputed by 2 separate editors, and supported by no others as far as I can see, Wikipedia's policy requires you to seek consensus for your edits by engaging in its dispute resolution procedures. One of the editors with whom you are in dispute has already opened a discussion on the dispute resolution noticeboard, as indicated in his notice above. Please respond to other editors' objections by engaging in proper discussion either there or on the article's talk page. Simply insisting that you are right and the other editors are wrong is unacceptable—you need to provide convincing arguments that the other editors' objections are unfounded.
I have reverted your latest sequence of edits to the article. In my opinion you would be wise to avoid re-reverting until you have convinced the editors with whom you are in dispute that your edits are genuine improvements to the article.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 13:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
PS: The same warning applies to the article List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation where you also appear to be engaged in an edit war and to have violated the 3-revert rule.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 15:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Dispute resolution 2
editListen, since you are feeling so aggrieved by having three Wikipedia users cornering you as a relatively new user, I am going to offer you one last courteous explanation of what is wrong with your edits on 'Golden Triangle (UK universities)'.
- In this edit, I corrected the error that you brought up, in addition to removing the WP:PEACOCKery and irrelevant list of universities [1]. So stop accusing me of repeatedly restoring incorrect information.
- After the error was corrected, you still reverted back to your version [2] [3], which is WP:DISRUPTIVE behavior.
- The WP:PEACOCKery I am referring to (as I have already explained to you [4] [5]) is this: Indeed, there are more famous former students associated with the individual constituent colleges of both Oxford and Cambridge than the entirety of most other universities worldwide. With that said, it is arguably considered throughout the world, like Oxford and London, as the very most greatest university in the world and the home of the elite-elite. Have you actually read the link WP:PEACOCK to see exactly why words like "the very most greatest" should not be used in Wikipedia? Yeah true, they have the most Nobel laureates, but that in no way translates to being "the very most greatest university in the world."
- I am also opposed to you adding the list of universities by Nobel Prize affiliates in the Cambridge University section in the 'Golden Triangle (UK universities)' article. I have already told you that it is irrelevant to the 'Golden Triangle (UK universities)' article [6] [7]. So stop accusing me of saying you added unnecessary information to 'List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation'. I have been completely uninvolved in that article, and the dispute resolution I brought up is only related to 'Golden Triangle (UK universities)'.
Your retaliatory dispute resolution request is riddled with uncivil accusations of deception and victimization and I suggest you remove it. Note that I have never engaged in any name-calling apart from describing your actions as disruptive.
And lastly, your comments [8] [9] inviting other users to the dispute resolution "arena" suggests that you are deliberately kicking up a fuss to make a mockery of Wikipedia. - Yk3 talk ~ contrib 11:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
WP:AN/I notification
editHello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Thetruthnow2012 and Golden Triangle (UK universities). Thank you. - Yk3 talk ~ contrib 00:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, STOP. You are not allowed to re-re-repost the same long message on ANI. Please remove the duplicate second copy.
- [10]
- Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
July 2011
edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you are reminded not to attack other editors, as you did on User talk:Rangoon11 with this edit. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you, Island Monkey talk the talk 08:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- You must stop-edit-warring on Golden Triangle (UK universities) and at other pages, stop making accusations of illegal activity in edit summaries, and you must discuss your content dispute in a civil manner on the article's Talk page. If you repeat this behavior once your block expires, you should expect to be blocked for longer -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- And please note that personal attacks like this in edit summaries are also not acceptable, and will get you further blocks if you repeat them -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- Boing! said Zebedee warned you about resuming the exact same behavior after your block expired. Since you decided to resume that behavior, I have reblocked you for a longer time. I will warn you again: If you repeat this behavior once your block expires, you should expect to be blocked for longer, potentially indefinitely. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- I got your message on my Talk page, but as you can't edit there now I'll reply here instead...
- You were edit-warring, and you are not allowed to do that whether you think you are right or not - your legal training notwithstanding. If you think something is wrong, or you don't know why someone deleted large portions of an article, you should discuss it civilly on the article's Talk page - find out other people's reasons for what they did, and *wait* for a consensus supporting you before reverting to your preferred version. Something being verifiable and cited is not alone enough for material to be included in an article, and it must also, for example, be relevant and appropriate to a topic, and not duplicated or better suited elsewhere - and things like that are decided by consensus, not by you.
- I see you have now been blocked again for repeating the exact same behaviour as soon as your first block expired, so please do take note of the warning left for you by Gogo Dodo. If you repeat the same behaviour again when your latest block expires, you will indeed be blocked for longer - very possibly indefinitely. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Response to 'Zebedee' and 'David J Wilson'
editAfter receiving this block by an editor with the weird and preposterous username of 'Zebedee,' I now realize that such editors not only fail to correct obvious webpage errors on Wikipedia, but that they punish those who seek to correct and contribute to it. My summary paragraph at the beginning of the webpage is not merely correct, but proper, since the opening paragraphs of any page (electronic or hardcopy) always starts with an introductory paragraph providing a summary of what is to follow. Such acts are issues of both exposition and scholarship. People who are unfamiliar with the so-called concept of the 'Golden Triangle' as it only applies to Oxbridge and London, at least for now anyway, must be informed as to why it is even referred this way. Rankings alone don't mean much, albeit, Cambridge University is ranked number one in the world this year, since such rankings only existed for roughly seven years, while the so-called concept and title goes back over a hundred years!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So either these editors suffer from 'rejects syndrome' and find offense to truthful information about the said universities or they lack understanding on how to properly edit a webpage and allow for obvious corrections. Consensus by one person on one topic webpage and another person on another topic webpage is no consensus. And what is even more strange is that these so-called editors continue to revert the said webpages to an incorrect version. It appears that these editors hide behind the notion of a consensus even if there appears to be one person using several usernames and advocating the very same erroneous information in the very same section of that said same webpage!!!!!!!! And even if there was a consensus, which I don't believe there is, does the consensus of several obviously wrong people advocating erroneous information that flies in the face of verifiable citations constitute a right, or for that matter, even a valid contribution to an encyclopedia? No, it doesn't, for it is inherently unethical on its face. Encyclopedia's, by their very factoid and scholarly nature, are not subject to politics and negotiation. For if this be the case, then Wikipedia ceases to be a reliable encyclopedia, and constitutes nothing more than a comments webpage with questionable sources of information that can never be trusted. If this is what the editors stand for and advocate, then it would be better to rely on better known and well-established encyclopedias such as the Encyclopedia Britannica that ONLY rely on scholarly factual information based upon verifiable citations provided by recognized and qualified scholars in every field on earth. And I might add that it is no coincidence that the Encyclopedia Britannica was founded by Oxford, Cambridge, London and Chicago Universities.
In regards to the topic webpage entitled 'List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation' 'David J Wilson' left the number of London University Nobel laureates in the introductory paragraphs, but left out the rest of the concise summary regarding the others. What he fails to understand is that there is always a summary in the introductory paragraphs of any page. And what's worse is that 'David J Wilson' left in incorrect numbers of Nobel laureates for Columbia University. It should be 72 instead of 96. And I was generous with the 72 affiliate total of Columbia University, since it should really be 68 total affiliates when one takes into account that Aage Bohr, Robert Solow, Sune Bergstrom and Steven Weinberg were at Columbia for less than 1 calender year as evidenced by Columbia University's own official website (see: <http://c250.columbia.edu/c250_celebrates/nobel_laureates/by_year.html>). Nonetheless, the erroneous and arbitrary number of either 96 or 97 seems to pop up only for Columbia University no matter who edits it, which makes me believe it is none other than 'rangoon11' disguised with other usernames. I would suppose that he/she continues to do this to escape the consequences of the 3-Revert Rule. Unfortunately, for 'rangoon11' or whatever username he is using now, Columbia University's own website on the issue fails to support his spurious affiliate number claims. And 'rangoon11' aka 'Mnbv5432' or 'SmackBot' or 'Poliman97' continues to misuse citations that have nothing to do with Columbia University. Indeed, this rogue editor known as 'rangoon11' continues to falsely use citations 1, 3-5 that only refer to Oxford, Cambridge and Chicago Universities, and not Columbia University. Moreover, 'rangoon11' aka 'Mnbv5432' or 'SmackBot' or 'Poliman97' continues to refer to citation number 2 which evidences only 16 staff members who received Nobel prizes from Columbia University, the rest he seemed to have added on his own.
Another correction that I made that was removed by '218.189.93.244' was the total number of affiliate Nobel laureates at the University of California at Berkeley where the correct number stood at 42, but was changed back to 46. The total number of Nobel laureates, including current and deceased faculty members, as well as alumni members, stands at 42, when one takes into account that the names of Steven Chu & Yuan T. Lee on the current faculty list overlap with those in the alumni members list and the names of William F. Giaque & Glen T. Seaborg in the deceased list overlap with those in the alumni members list (see: <http://berkeley.edu/news/features/nobel>). The correction was mine and I stand by it. Any mediocre and unscholarly consensus to the contrary notwithstanding.
And returning back to the other topic webpage entitled 'Golden Triangle (UK universities),' supporting information in the way of statistics was provided along with commentary and verifiable citations. Such information was provided in order to adequately support the widely perceived status of Oxbridge and London as the ultimate universities that they are. Rankings and Nobel prize numbers only constitute small factors, since other statistics were necessary to justify the bold position of the 'Golden Triangle.' The information provided by me neither detracted from nor destroyed such a widely perceived concept, or rather mystique. If anything, it justified and magnified it in such a way as to render it unopposable. The fact that I made the statement that Cambridge, like Oxford and London, is the very most greatest university in the world is shared by millions worldwide. Indeed, the author Michael Grant, one among many, in his book entitled 'Cambridge' said as much. And thousands of 4.0 gpa students from every top ranked university on earth applying to all three said universities every year with only a hundred getting admitted, whether for the Rhodes, Marshall, Gates, Fulbright or ORS scholarships, proves my point quite adequately. How's that for a consensus. Yes, a consensus of thousands of applicants every year. The numbers don't lie!!!!! Like anything else in life, if statistics is the measure of greatness, especially in regards to all-time status, then one can easily make the case and say that Cambridge University, like Oxford and London, is the very most greatest university in the world. That being said, famous alumni production statistics in every field were added to bolster such an easy position.
The said information that I provided constituted both undeniable and verifiable facts (see: self-defeating 'Yk Yk Yk's admission of my accuracy and truthfulness on the matter to editor 'David J Wilson' on the dispute discussion page). The fact that 'David J Wilson' deemed the situation 'unresolved' neither gives him nor anyone else the subsequent justification to delete 95% of the text, most of which was not even mine to begin with. Mind you, my only contribution constituted only a few sentences of text. Nonetheless, mindless censorship of this kind neither constitutes a valid justification nor a viable solution of any kind. As was stated before, the said topic webpage only contains two tables of statistics based on rankings that existed for only seven years, while the mystique of the Golden Triangle existed for the better part of one hundred years!!!!!! The solution provided by 'David J Wilson' and 'Stradivarius' provides no solution at all, but constitutes blatant censorship without just cause. For what else do you call butchery of valid information that was only meant to elaborate, expand and elucidate an existing abstract topic? Now future readers who come across the said topical webpage won't even have a clue as to what 'Golden Triangle' means and how it is to be properly distinguished from other universities both domestic and international. Looks like 'YK YK YK' shot herself in the foot, since the administrative editors went way beyond what she wanted. Great job. Well, there always the Encyclopedia Britannica for anyone who wants to rely on a more trustworthy and scholarly source of knowledge.
Thetruthnow2012 (talk) 09:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC) (by the way, the username that I used refers to the moment of truth known as the 2012 London Olympics; any other inference shows ignorance)
- Nobody is going to read that huge great wall of text - discussion of article content should be on the article's Talk page, not here. And when you're reverted by multiple different editors, that's a consensus against you, and you do not edit war if you want to remain here - Simples! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Thetruthnow2012 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Your reason here Thetruthnow2012 (talk) 09:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Please read WP:NOTTHEM, WP:Edit warring and WP:BRD. You may not like the way Wikipedia works, but if you are to contribute here you will have to go along with it. JohnCD (talk) 10:27, 13 July 2011 (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.
If you don't like to read lengthy talk messages, then who made you administrative editor anyway? If one is going to get their two cents in, then why leave anything out. No argument is partially cooked. Nonetheless, your consensus of editors is frivolous, especially when taking into account the exhibition of editors (i.e. 'rangoon11' aka many username alias) with questionable qualifications and ADMITTEDLY disreputable conduct involving the perpetuation of erroneous information that lacks verifiable citations. Your definition of consensus is no consensus at all. Blindly hiding behind the blanket concept of consensus only weakens your argument. Editors are supposed to be the vanguard of accurate and reliable information that the public can trust. Wikipedia editors involved in this mess only seek to protect erroneous information. Such aforesaid erroneous information that was disproven by existing citations or found to have citations that had no relevance to the subject matter concerned (i.e. Columbia University citations 1, 3-5 pertain to Oxford, Cambridge and Chicago Universities, and not Columbia) have no right to protection, for it is both unethical and wrong. I don't particularly mind the way Wikipedia works, but your policies are followed robotically without question, leaving out appropriate checks and balances that would otherwise have ensured accurate and reliable information that the public at large could trust. After this eye-opening experience, I can unwaveringly say with dismay that no one can trust this website for the very reasons aforesaid. Internet surfers beware!!!!!!!!
- It's not relevant, because your content dispute is not the reason for your block - you are blocked because you are not allowed to edit-war, period. And unless you understand that and agree to stop, you're not going to get an early unblock. (Once unblocked, you are welcome to discuss your content dispute on the article Talk page). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Thetruthnow2012 (talk) 06:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Thetruthnow2012 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Your reason here Thetruthnow2012 (talk) 06:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Neither this unblock request nor your rants above address the reason for your block. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:15, 14 July 2011 (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.
- A few words of advice. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and, whether you think it is right to do so or not, works by cooperation. None of us can always get exactly what we think is right in Wikipedia. I frequently have to accept that things which I think are wrong get accepted, while things which I am convinced are right get rejected. However, I mange to achieve a significant proportion of the changes I think are right. I would not do so if I stuck out for "all or nothing", because that would just annoy other editors, I would be seen as disruptive, and I would be blocked. It is actually possible to achieve much more of what one wishes to achieve on Wikipedia by being prepared to compromise. Your approach whenever someone else disagrees with you has been to shout back angrily, persist in reverting to your own preferred version, accuse other editors of everything from dishonesty to lack of competence, and generally behave as though you think of Wikipedia as a battleground where other editors are enemies to be fought against. I suggest you think carefully about this approach, and consider whether, when your block expires, you should try editing in a more cooperative spirit. If you generally treat other editors with respect (whether or not you think they deserve it) you are more likely to make progress. I have taken some time and trouble in drafting this message in the hope that it will help you to avoid being indefinitely blocked, which would be a likely next step if you were to continue in the same way. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
After receiving such advice, I have given some thought to this reply. It must be said that I have given proper respect to those editors where it was due. To those who did not receive it, then of course, it was merely benign and well within the margin of civility as allowed under the law. Nonetheless, everything that I have said is not only cogent, but relevant. Indeed, it was my content (albeit, a very small fraction of the whole webpage) that brought this entire matter before the administrators to begin with. Was it not the editor known as 'YK YK YK' who mentioned that my content suffered from some sort of 'puffiness' which constituted her reasons for entering into the so-called edit war and thereby dragging me into the arena to begin with. Was it not one of the editors who deleted 95% of the content of one webpage, thereby proving the matter to be part of the issue. With all due respect, it appears that administrative editors such as 'Zebedee' can't argue or even address the issue whatsoever. If it appears that no favorable action will be taken, then so be it. But there has to be a better system in place to guard substance, and not just process. Mind you, these aforesaid errors occured under the administrative editors watch and should never be encouraged. Blind adherence to process without adherence to the factual truth is unethical.
Thetruthnow2012 (talk) 07:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- In a court of law, "hearsay" could be the factual truth. But courts don't allow hearsay into evidence. If they did, that would be unethical. Process is process: we all have to live by the rules. Subjective "Truth" has little to do with it oftentimes. Your repeated unblock requests are very unlikely to help you get unblocked. Just wait the block out, why don't you? Good luck... Doc talk 07:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not addressing the content issue here, because it is not relevant to your block. You have been told several times that you simply *must not edit-war*. Even if you think you are 100% right and everyone else is 100% wrong, you *still must not edit-war*. Here on Wikipedia we have contributors who are 13, 12, 11 years old and younger who understand that. If *you* can't or won't, then you will not be editing here at all - it really is as simple as that -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Thetruthnow2012 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Your reason here Thetruthnow2012 (talk) 07:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
no reason given for being unblocked. On the basis of your above comments I have no confidence at all that you'll edit productively when this block expires as you don't seem to appreciate why you were blocked and are continuing unacceptable behaviour here. After reviewing your contributions, this conduct is consistent with your aggressive and rude editing. As such, I'm extending the block duration to indefinite. Nick-D (talk) 08:23, 15 July 2011 (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.
Don't make it appear as if Wikipedia is my life, for it isn't. Indeed, I've only been on Wikipedia for a mere several weeks now as an editor. Nevertheless, your take on hearsay is incompetent, since you confuse facts that can be verified by mere citations within the context of scholarly research with inadmissable unsworn testimony from other individuals that is sourced from outside of court. Don't confuse mere process with the pursuit of veritas, which is the whole point of both scholarship and yes, the court of jurisprudence. Anyone with even a simplistic level of common sense can figure that out. If a tutor was grading your editorial work he'd give you folks an F in America or an E in the UK. Your editors frivolous and overstated gripes about 'puffiness', the correctly stated number of Nobel laureates from other institutions and the widely shared notion that Cambridge, like Oxford and London, constitute the 'very most greatest universities in the world' prove that content was indeed a partial issue and your editors' deletions of both citations and contributions, as well as necessary corrections prove my point. And you keep piping about 'edit war'. Edit war my foot. You seem to dislike and disrupt anyone who disagrees with your so-called editors, while I have provided necessary contributions and painfully obvious corrections that are too numerous to mention here again (see: discussion board and above). Your editors suspiciously overlook this point yet again. Indeed, my numerous corrections and contributory elucidations constitute no basis for this so-called 'edit war'. If it remotely does, then I am glad that I did it to correct your editors erroneous and lackluster work that no researcher would be caught dead doing anywhere. In this context, being the monkey wrench in your machine would be laudable. That's my two cents worth.
Thetruthnow2012 (talk) 14:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Thetruthnow2012 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Your reason here Thetruthnow2012 (talk) 10:45 am, Today (UTC−4)
Decline reason:
Continuing to post diatribes without addressing the reason for your block will result in the loss of your ability to edit this page. TNXMan 14:47, 15 July 2011 (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.
Don't worry. I'll wait for several weeks. But remember this, when I revert a webpage I correct and contribute. When 'rangoon11' or 'Yk Yk YK' reverted, the webpages were incorrect and contained no contributions whatsoever. Blind adherence to the policy of consensus is no argument. Indeed, I seem to remember something about the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, the holocaust of the Jews, apartheid, and ethnic cleansing in the former state of Yugoslavia as being justified by a consensus at the time of each said event. Consensus has never been a justification for error.
Thetruthnow2012 (talk) 06:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Facepalm See WP:WRONGVERSION. This unblock request may cost you, if I were a betting man. Two weeks is better than a lot longer than two weeks, BTW. Doc talk 06:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here [[User:Thetruthnow2012|Thetruthnow2012]] ([[User talk:Thetruthnow2012#top|talk]]) 06:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)}} That was your talk page access removed for abusing the unblock template. Spartaz Humbug! 10:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- Please note that this block is no longer a 2-week block, it was increased to indefinite by Nick-D when declining an unblock request, above (and I concur with that decision - a blocked edit-warrior who insists they were doing no wrong and demands the right to override consensus cannot be unblocked) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)