User talk:Le Grand Bleu - Knowledge (XXG)

3197:, who was born in Split in 1971 and, thus, is technically a Yugoslavian (is it Yugoslavian or Yugoslav?), was three times Wimbledon finalist in 1992, 1994, and 1998, until he finally won Wimbledon, which is technically a Grand Slam event, in 2001. The fifth game, amigos, was a sight to see - the tie-break finished at 9-7! Goran was also twice the Grand Slam finalist in doubles - in 1990 at French Open with Czech Petr Korda and in 1999 with... American, I believe, Jeff Tarango. Both times he fought fiercely but, alas, lost. The latter match was especially sad because they lost to an Indian double and India is not really a tennis nation. So, technically, Yugoslavia had three Grand Slam finalists and actually DID produce a Grand Slam champion, but whoever wrote this section didn't know that." 2309:

that any contributions that you make are subject to changes, mergers or whatever. That disclaimer seems to have been removed but perhaps it should be reinstated. Creation of a small article that logically fits as part of a larger article, will almost certainly be merged into that larger article as an improvement to the later. If you are planning to expand such a small article into something self supporting, it is a good idea to put a {{Under construction}} tag at the top as an indication of further work. The larger article does not 'belong' to anyone else as you suggest any more than the original belongs to you. Please have a look at

2282:

generally threw a major tantrum. But then I thought, hey, you're new! They've been here long before you and they have their own thing going on. Behave! Earn respect. Do small things. Work hard. Contribute in little things. And eventually they'll see you're good people and let you work on your own things. So I tried again. Took a tiny little article noone cared about and tried to do some tiny little things. Result - accusations of severe misconduct and a two weeks ban on the strangest pretext I've ever seen, which is "not easy or even impossible" to revert. Two weeks of my new life in EnWP - two lessons learned:

1375:

with explanation. That is where we stand. My only complaint was that the information was removed without explanation. Then the two of your started edit warring about it rather than trying to use the article's talk page to discuss it. I would not say that leaving an edit warring message on the two editors' talk pages that are reverting each other without discussion is carpet bombing. Like I told you on my talk page, if you feel my actions are inappropriate ask another admin or at

3697: 3235: 2785: 2623: 2022: 978: 548: 3968: 26: 511: 2478: 1737: 376: 1069: 4138: 3487: 3341: 2983: 2545: 2077: 1820: 1219: 674: 406: 98: 1991: 1688:"Our"? Okay. Message received, duly noted, thank you. Could you all please stop? I think I've seen enough hostility for one day. I love Knowledge (XXG) but the little peek behind the scenes today wasn't fun. No more, thank you. From now on, I promise I'll be the very "client" who "never goes to the kitchen". Enjoy writing, I'll enjoy reading, everyone's happy. Have a nice day! :-) 3427:

destroyed it. Considering the amount and the nature of hostilities in the Balkans in the past quarter of a century, I had every reason to presume it was a deliberate ethnically driven attack on Croatia. Only in this particular case, he's not fighting with a gun in his hand, but with a keyboard in Knowledge (XXG). Don't they still have an international tribunal for that in Geneva?

4080: 3832: 3844:, if possible, and ensure properly sourced information is retained. Often, a live substitute link can be found. Links not used as references, notes or citations are not as important, such as those listed in the "External links" or "Further reading" sections, but bad links in those sections should also be fixed if possible. Please take a look at the 2163:"Sockpuppet inquiry pages are only about account and IP misuse—nothing else. If the evidence is not there, then the case will be closed without any adverse finding of any kind." You had no right or ground to block me. Besides, if you were so sure it was sockpuppetry, why did you close the check before a checkuser got there? 2166:

rights to block users based on duck test alone without any technical proof. The saddest part is that the rules give clear directions for actual puppeteers to get out of the block, but for good faith users it's only "not easy or even impossible". I don't think I've ever seen a more unfair and easy to abuse rule than this.

3891:

You do understand that you have a known bias against me, right? For example, what are you even doing here? Did user Gab4Gab file a complaint? Or are you watching my talk page in order to find fault to retaliate for my complete lack of any respect to you as an administrator or a human being? Now would

2866:

Oh great! I'm simply amazed by how people want to destroy an opponent instead of talking to him. And I'm deeply ashamed that this is what Knowledge (XXG) has turned into. With attitudes like that, Knowledge (XXG) will eventually (and very soon) lose any credibility it has left (which is VERY little).

2165:

I've just realized the futility of this protest: "If you are improperly blocked for sockpuppetry, you should realize that it may not always be easy or even possible to correct the situation." Great! So I did nothing wrong, got blocked and there is no way out of this because the rules give admins full

1374:

You are right I reverted the first time the information was removed as the information was removed without explanation. The information was removed again with an explanation and you reverted, the information was removed again with explanation and you reverted again, the information was removed again

1177:

Just for future awareness, any repeat personal attacks or repeat edit-warring will lead to longer blocks, and the chance of being unblocked will be less - a block is intended to prevent future behaviour, so repeating any of them will simply show either unwillingness or inability to restrain yourself.

729:

I've spoken with some of the other editors in private about similar issues, and I don't mean to seem like I singling you out. I (and the project as a whole) value your contributions and think you definitely have great things to contribute, its just trying to keep the topic on the content and not the

698:

After looking at some of your other comments on the Article's talk page, I wanted to give you a final warning against making ad-hominem attacks on other editors. I issued a blanket warning at the edit warring noticeboard to stay civil, but you have persisted in attacking your fellow editors. If you

334:

so Wiki cannot. We have no way of telling what that press release actually meant. The December O&D may or may not include these, if it doesn't, then they are not yet a committed order but just a nice idea. Press releases are put out by the Airbus marketing department, the spreadsheet are real.

3638:

They demand following rules to the dot yet forget to post diffs that caused the block. They only remember the rules that protect them. Typical Knowledge (XXG) admins. Angry, humorless, having long forgotten why they are here and what their purpose is... which is a good question, by the way! Is there

2600:

on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit

2327:

for more. The rules are far more assiduously enforced for any article that is directly ot indirectly a biography of a living person. This is because of the potential for libel either by well meaning editors or opponents of the person in question. Negative and contentious information not backed by

2308:

Since I have had no editorial interaction with you in the past, let me try to put the events and your above post into some perspective. First of all no one here owns any article or edit that is made to an article. This is a co-operative project. There used to be a disclaimer on edit pages warning

2281:

Well, it's been two weeks, time for a little update. Less than two weeks ago I wrote my (admit it, tiny, insignificant and unimportant) article which I considered my first serious attempt at EnWP. It ended up being taken away and incorporated into someone else's work. Well, I huffed and I puffed and

2229:

At the risk of evoking more intemperate outbursts from you, I'll address just part of your misunderstanding of how things work. A check user will compare named accounts and set out their opinion of the technical relationship, if any, between the two accounts. A check user will not publicly compare a

1849:

1248:

758:

You were the only one making personal attacks, and you were edit-warring with three editors, so why so surprised? And let me also clarify that criticizing someone – for making personal attacks, for instance – is not the same thing as making a personal attack. I'm writing this, as it struck me as you

435:

333:

Thank you for your interest in A380 Orders and Deliveries. Unfortunately trying to total orders from press releases is meaningless, the only way we can put net orders up here is from the Airbus official, monthly O&D spreadsheet. At the moment Airbus itself does not recognise the Emirates orders

183:

Leo711 is not my "old username". It's my "present" username on Russian WP and due to some recent changes it is now also my "single user login" of which I have four actually. Merging them is not possible and I don't always remember to switch them when I switch from wiki to wiki. Could you please lift

64:

I'm not new per se, I've been around doing some little things here and there for years. But I've never done any serious editing or participated actively in this particular Knowledge (XXG) project. I'm finding it extremely difficult to navigate through and understand the numerous rules and procedures

2257:

Like I said previously, if I'm smart enough to have three IPs in three different countries, wouldn't I be smart enough to NOT copypaste the exact same edit description AND use phrasing like "nobody's using alt IP"? I guess "duck test" doesn't include logic. This whole situation screams "set up" but

1533:

I do not see that as sufficient reason to delete the work of other people who have written about the Tu 116. Who has created the page is pretty irrelevant anyway: if you write an article in the space now, everybody reasonable will credit it to you. If you still believe the page history needs to be

3212:

If you didn't like the style you could've corrected it. Or marked it for correction. Instead you just removed it. Your page clearly shows you're Montenegrin. And your actions make me think you hate Croatians. I'm known to be Russian and your angry behavior confirms my guess - you hate every other

2253:

Just out of curiosity. When you looked at this particular "case" did it not occur to you that this "sockpuppetry" was WAY too primitive for someone who can fake three IP addresses and VERY convenient for someone who wanted to "punish" an inexperienced opponent? Whoever did this, knew what he was

1767:

Please do not push your POV in Knowledge (XXG). If you don't like something it doesn't mean it's not true or didn't happen. You deleted referenced material without any explanation. If you want to discuss it, do it on the Talk page not here and not in edit description. I'm reverting your edit and

1710:

Just to note that all the edits and moves which you did not like were done so your name remained linked to the text as you are entitled to. And if you look in the article history it is clear that you are attributed as the author of the text. We welcome your help but if this all confuses you then

3426:

Sideshow Bob is a Montenegrin (I just found out what the denonym is) and he deleted proven and widely known information about a Croatian athlete to make Croatia look bad as a sports nation. If he didn't like the style, he could've just corrected it or marked it for correction. Instead, he just

2162:

That's ridiculous! Blocking based on duck test alone and "rather technical defense"!? What does it even mean! Blocking should be clearly explained. You found nothing! IPs don't match! You're not even a checkuser for that matter. And I know for sure I didn't use sockpuppetry. Read the rules!

1558:

I hate to break it to you like that, but the work of other people who have written about the Tu-116 has already been deleted and turned into a redirect. But if you as an administrator don't want another article in Knowledge (XXG) and prefer a redirect instead, who am I to argue with that.

3201:

If you want to write in this manner, I suggest creating a journal, blog or tumblr page, but please stay away from wiki articles. Also, if you persist with ridiculous personal attacks, you will be reported, and I see you have a reputation for being blocked continuously. Have a nice day.

2897:

Lack of consensus!? And what do you think I was trying to do!? All throughout this stint I was trying to get everyone to talk about it. HOW do you get to consensus when a group of aggressive editors led by an adminitrator jump on you and just keep shutting down what you want to add?!

3572:

It's an unblock request by definition. This is the unblock request template. You know what template is, right? What I wrote was the REASON for that request. Somebody, please, explain all that to him in some simplified language. I can't go down to that level, I'm afraid of heights.

184:

this block? It's hardly my fault that this mess happened. And I definitely had no intentions of using the other username as a puppet. If necessary, you can add a note on my user page stating that I have two "single user logins"... which kind of defeats the purpose, don't you think?

2234:("CheckUsers will not publicly connect an account with an IP address per the privacy policy except in extremely rare circumstances."). Thus, when an SPI is opened where the filer claims that the named account is socking using only IP addresses (not another named account), the 805:

reversion and edit summary? Who are you calling a "rumor monger"? The aircraft has been identified as 9M-MRO, which makes it a Boeing 777-2H6ER. Knowledge (XXG) should strive to present accurate information, which is what my edits were doing. Suggest you cut down on the

915:

Good question. Maybe because other editors are too numerous and I barely have time to revert the idiocy they add to a "hot" article while violating the Five Pillars of the project? Or MAYBE because edit summaries are not intended for providing information?

4150:

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

699:

continue when you Edit Warring block expires, their will be no recourse but block you. Discussion is how we are able to reach consensus, but attacking other editors like this makes that civil discussion impossible and just leads to bad outcomes.

3835:

Welcome to Knowledge (XXG). Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not remove citations or information sourced through citations simply because a link to a source is not working, as you did to

3595:

So... After you've been blocked for personal attacks, you responded with more personal attacks in unblock requests? If you allege misbehavior from another user, you should start with diffs to their policy-violating edits, not their ethnicity.

1359:

One of those reverts was actually yours. You SAW it was deletion of good information, yet instead of warning the real culprit you started carpet bombing. How clever is that! How long have you been an administrator? Two days or three already?

3774:

when faced with a situation with which you disagreed, I have reblocked your account for an escalated duration of 3 months. If you continue insulting others after or during your block, please expect the next step to be an indefinite block.

1573:

Their work is still accessible to all via the page history, and I do not like hiding it from non-admins by pressing the delete button without a better reason. Whether you turn this redirect into an article or not, you can do it by being

2318:

One of the prime pillars of Knowledge (XXG) articles is verifiability of any material added to any article. Sources used for support are required to be reliable. Knowledge (XXG) has rules as to what constitutes reliable. Please see

1646:

I really did. I only have four articles to my name and just wanted another one to be added. It was stolen by an admin and added to another article under his name (instead of, for example, letting ME do that if it's really necessary).

3068:

The entry disappeared from the Administrators noticeboard within seconds from the block. What is the blocking admin hiding? Why remove it so quickly? All other requests hang there for weeks. Just want someone else to look into this.

296:

Wait a minute. WP:AUTHOR has very clear definitions. Four of them. Which one of them, you think, suits Grunwald? Not an important figure. No original concepts. No well-known works. Definitely no monuments, except his monumental ego.

2881:

I don't think it had anything to do with the lack of discussion. It had more to do with your lack of consensus for what you were trying to do. The idea is to not continue to revert several other editors, even when you think you are

3804:

Ah, shit! He's an admit. You can't call a moron admin a moron! Dayem! Now I won't be allowed to edit the least respected project on the Internet. PS Please console the moron admin in question. I hope he's not crying too hard.

2357:

and incorporate your edit (as long as you don't violate any other policy). If someone reverts it with a valid reason, you are not supposed to just restore the change, but initiate a discussion on the talk page and seek

930:

Interesting perspective. If "edit summaries are not intended for providing information" (such as an indication to other editors of the reasons for edits), are they reserved exclusively for snarky comments and insults?

3213:

slavic nation. You know who else had that habit? A little known German person called Adolf Hitler. And no, I won't lower myself to reporting your personal attack. Unlike you, I KNOW I'm not who you called me. Enjoy.

4178: 4022:

Could someone other than the stupid admin please explain to me what BLP is? The idiot who blocked me didn't even bother to leave a link. He was in so much rush to react to an anonymous complaint, for some reason.

80:

This warning doesn't work. Nobody cares if you're new or unexperienced. They'll jump on you with vengeance and press you with their warnings and abbreviations and whatnot. Be careful, this is an unfriendly place.

3152:. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose 2313:

for more on this. The upshot is that the material merged into the target article was contributed by it original author and, provided the merge housekeeping was done properly, that attribution will be preserved.

488:

Don't tell this to ME. Tell it to those who just revert my edits without any explanations. THEY should go to the talk page and explain. I asked them many times! Instead all I hear are threats of blocking.

2328:

a reliable source must (by Knowledge (XXG) policy) be removed immediately. Many of the normal edit warring sanctions are waived for such removals. A reliable source for any claim about a living person

4162:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 1347:

The article's history shows that they removed the information 3x and you reverted them two of those times. Neither one of you have gone to the article talk page and discussed this information.

1050:

Out of interest you were not blocked with regard to any interaction with me but your comments about others, calling me a joker when I was trying to help is bad form but not a blockable offence.

2332:

come from a reliable secondary source. A news journal (newspaper, TV news broadcast, TV documentary etc. etc. is not considered to be either a secondary source or reliable). Please review

1293:

Then maybe you should stop the edit war by telling all this TO THE PERSON WHO STARTED IT? Did you even look at the article history? I'm simply reverting the deletion of sourced information.

1178:

Please take that into account as you move forward. When faced with a situation where you're going to attack someone or edit war, click the X on the top right of your browser and walk away

3639:

a position in the world less respected or coveted? Doubt it. But, however pathetic they are in their tiny little lives, in here they are kings. Let them enjoy this little moment. Cheers.

948:

Well... YEAH! :-)) I did give you an indication. Did you listen? No. Anyway, you can enjoy uninterrupted adding rumors to the article for 24 hours. Don't forget to thank the ozzie below.

354:

I was actually looking at the German and French articles that do recognize this. I see all other sources state the bumber of Emirates orders at 140 aircraft. But OK, let's wait and see.

3191:

Which one are you? I am nazi (?!) for reverting a section which looks like it has been written by a five-year-old struggling to come to terms with grammar. Quoted below for evidence:

2509:

o you speak English? Do you know the difference between Director General and General Director? Have you ever heard of other rules and guidelines? I corrected something that was wrong.

2714:

Are you threatening me for disputing neutrality? I know in your country it's quite common to bully your way through a discussion and push outcomes you want. But this is not Russia.

2766: 2261:

Anyway, as I found out yesterday, your actions are completely within the rules. If those work for this community, good. They sure don't seem to be working for me. Have a nice day.

523: 515: 2456:

No, it doesn't. What you THINK as a German speaker is you business and you're entitled to an opinion. But this is an encyclopedia. No place for private opinions. Find a source.

2003: 3907: 2254:

doing - copied edit descriptions, used IPs not another account, knowing the case will be judged on duck test alone, not technical check. How am I doing in this duck testing?

1999: 880:

I'm insulted I'm in the same encyclopedia as you! But I don't whine about it on your talk page, do I? Aircraft type is Boeing 777-200ER. H6 is a Boeing client code. We have

43: 2927:

Really!? New rules? Get your edit pre-approved by a biased group? How interesting! I didn't even realize how dead the whole idea of 💕 is. Thank you for opening my eyes.

1321:

I have left the exact same message for the other editor also. You are both edit warring. If you don't like getting a template message about this, then don't edit war.

277:

Although I'm somewhat sympathetic to your point of view, that shouldn't be how we decide whether or not to have an article, the article's already been made and it meets

2914:

Well here is a tip. Get consensus first, then add or make the change. You do not make the change and then "YELL" at everybody who reverts you and tell them to discuss.

47: 3630:

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.

3478:

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.

3124:

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.

2438:

mean “my penis” in the context of the song. This meaning may not appear in dictionaries, but I as a native German-speaking can confirm that this is correct.

2222:

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.

1494:

If you want to turn this redirect back into an article, there is no need to delete the old history that is still available. For example, you could work from

653:. It was your steadfast refusal to read, understand and accept what edit-warring means that forced my hand on this one - it's all about YOUR behaviour here 229:

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.

2398: 1464: 2559:. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 3527: 3381: 3023: 2117: 1104: 138: 4110: 1745: 2486: 1036:

I like it how admins routinely ban users for discussions they actually participate in. Does ANYONE remember the stupid word called rules? Guess not.

3892:

you please so kind as to explain how my reply is "extremely rude"? Other than you just wanting it to be in order to find an excuse to ban me again.

993:

for personal attacks and remarks on other editors (user is already on a final warning for personal attacks from a previous incident), as you did at

2568: 1998:, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Knowledge (XXG) accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the 1866: 1782:

You restored unreferenced and poorly referenced controversial text about a living person, which I will be able to remove each time it appears, per

1265: 1149:

I was an a$ $ and promise not to do it. I just get angry when I see people "sourcing" information from yellow press. I overreacted. My apologies.

452: 1667: 4105: 4004: 3725: 3615: 3463: 3259: 3109: 2809: 2655: 2207: 2058: 1454: 1018: 584: 214: 2394: 1460: 3983:

today, an edit serious enough in itself to warrant a block, especially given your block history. When the block expires, you are welcome to

1649:

Thank you Mel... whatever your name is... too lazy to go back to look it up. You're by far the worst Knowledge (XXG) administrator I've met.

4192: 3177: 1450: 3953: 3522: 3376: 3018: 2112: 1956: 1930: 1670:. Proper attribution was kept and there was no "stealing". Also, there was no use of admin tools. Finally, a reminder (again) about our 1099: 133: 1333:

Your warning is misplaced and leads to further confrontation. Either show me the exact evidence of edit warring or leave my talk page.

2238:

way to determine whether sock puppetry is involved is through behavior, not technical evidence. This is what happened in your case.--

1392:

Would you like to see what she did in the article? Now she's under an IP. What are you going to do now? And what do you suggest I do?

388: 3320:

Oh, you want some variety? No problem, just tell me for which violation you like to block people and I'll do my best to accomodate.

2827: 2560: 1858: 1257: 744:

Sure you did. I bet the Finnish admin who started it all sure doesn't feel like anyone was singled out. Leave my talk page please.

590: 444: 380: 682: 4188: 3173: 4171: 2835: 2576: 1874: 1457:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1273: 598: 460: 2391:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1446: 262: 3988: 3721: 3255: 2805: 2580: 2230:

named account with an IP address because of Wikimedia's general policy of not publicly identifying a user's IP address. See

2042: 1878: 1519:

Then the author of the article will be the person who created a redirect. And I want to be one. Hence request for deletion.

1277: 1002: 568: 464: 35: 3306:

Just stop doing it altogether, and you will not be blocked on a regular basis anymore, at least not for personal attacks.--

715:

LOL, great! :-))) I was the only one on the subject but I'm the only one to get a warning. Okay. Thank you. Anything else?

2613: 881: 1741: 994: 316: 286: 4092: 4087: 3975: 3704: 3500: 3354: 3242: 3164:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to

2996: 2839: 2792: 2630: 2588: 2090: 2029: 1837: 1236: 985: 691: 602: 555: 423: 111: 4183: 3541: 3395: 3169: 3037: 2131: 1632: 1589: 1549: 1509: 1118: 152: 3494: 3348: 2990: 2490: 2258:

somehow you don't see it. I have to say, it puts you in a very peculiar position but, well, whatever rocks your boat.

2084: 1621:

I have merged the page histories of the old and new Tu 116 pages – there is really no reason to keep them separate. —

1076: 105: 3499:

Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the

3353:

Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the

2995:

Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the

2383:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

2089:

Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the

1441:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

110:

Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the

1995: 2767:

Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Le Grand Bleu reported by User:Ymblanter (Result: )

3984: 3717: 3251: 2801: 2797: 2647: 2593: 2572: 2556: 2038: 1870: 1842: 1831: 1269: 1241: 1230: 998: 564: 560: 519: 456: 428: 417: 2368: 2011: 1800:

Resorting to threats already? Okay, I'll only restore the sourced material and will find sources for the rest.

1408:

Oh! I just saw you blocked her. Could you also revert the edit please until proper discussion on the talk page?

1185: 660: 612: 4159: 3766:

Considering the history and long block log for personal attacks, and the fact that you once again resorted to

3957: 1196:

Have you ever thought about a career as a District Attorney? Duly noted, though, thank you. You, too, Ozzie!

524:

Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Le_Grand_Bleu reported by User:NeilN (Result: )

1949: 1923: 764: 686: 312: 282: 3665: 2571:

for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant

1869:

for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant

200: 3194: 3165: 2831: 2564: 2341: 2310: 1862: 1261: 646: 594: 448: 2669: 2193: 1886: 1791: 1757: 1716: 1165: 1055: 1026: 649:

for it. It's that simple. Calling others "vandals" for actually following policy is unacceptable, as

55: 39: 514:

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at

2851: 2643: 1160:

OK accept you were angry and blocks are to stop bad behaviour which you have agreed not to continue.

25: 4146: 4128: 4097: 3845: 3841: 3141: 3132: 2442: 2337: 4104:

been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the

4045: 3915: 3882: 3789: 3754: 3311: 3282: 2953: 2920: 2888: 2774: 2737: 2704: 2699:

Please revert yourself, otherwise your account will be blocked. You are editing agains consensus.--

2654:

been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the

2446: 2364: 2007: 1180: 655: 607: 4155: 3161: 3145: 278: 4055: 4024: 3925: 3893: 3864: 3806: 3674: 3640: 3574: 3505: 3428: 3359: 3321: 3293: 3214: 3070: 3001: 2928: 2899: 2868: 2747: 2715: 2680: 2525: 2511: 2457: 2294: 2262: 2167: 2095: 1968: 1944: 1918: 1897: 1801: 1769: 1744:

information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Knowledge (XXG) about

1689: 1652: 1599: 1560: 1520: 1410: 1394: 1361: 1334: 1308: 1294: 1197: 1082: 1037: 949: 917: 885: 826: 774: 760: 745: 716: 490: 355: 254: 116: 82: 66: 3908:

Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Problematic behavior of user Le Grand Bleu

413: 384: 4012: 3853: 3659: 3203: 2609: 2414: 1480: 815: 730:

people behind it. If you need any help with anything, I'd be happy to oblige. Best of luck,

196: 4167: 3157: 3149: 2660: 1575: 650: 242: 238: 3994: 3863:

I'll put a citation needed tag and you have two weeks to find "a live substitute link". :-)

3731: 3624: 3601: 3472: 3265: 3118: 2815: 2665: 2495: 2482: 2216: 2189: 2048: 1882: 1787: 1753: 1712: 1383: 1351: 1325: 1284: 1161: 1051: 1022: 1008: 735: 705: 629:, and refusal to understand that your actions are unacceptable are what led to this block. 574: 396: 302: 223: 4170:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 4163: 4037: 3160:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 3153: 3092: 2350: 2333: 2231: 1916:

Please discuss the issue on the talk page rather than engage in revert warring. Thank you.

1783: 1671: 1651:

Meanwhile, I'm back to reader mode. Let other do the work, I'll happily consume. "Cheers".

1535: 859: 807: 630: 3781: 3746: 3696: 3234: 2845: 2784: 2622: 2243: 2066: 2021: 1628: 1585: 1545: 1505: 977: 898:

Why don't you provide useful information in edit summaries instead of insulting editors?

547: 538: 479: 3713: 2639: 2320: 1376: 855: 626: 2293:

I wonder if there's some blocking policy for reading Knowledge (XXG)? So much to learn!

249:

be used to edit the same sets of articles. How does your situation satisfy this ... it

4120: 4041: 3911: 3878: 3307: 3278: 2948: 2915: 2883: 2770: 2733: 2700: 2597: 1846: 1245: 939: 906: 870: 432: 2324: 3450: 3096: 2405:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

1471:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

759:

were under the impression that I had made a personal attack on you – which I hadn't.

343: 338: 335: 258: 51: 4008: 3849: 2606: 2410: 2406: 1476: 1472: 1442: 811: 4137: 2477: 1736: 375: 2605:—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. 1857:

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's

1854:—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. 1256:

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's

1253:—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. 443:

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's

440:—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. 3597: 2567:

among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See

1380: 1348: 1322: 1281: 731: 701: 392: 298: 2544: 1819: 1218: 673: 405: 2552: 2388: 2239: 2062: 1675: 1623: 1580: 1540: 1500: 527: 468: 65:

which changed enormously since I last looked at them in 2007. So... BE NICE!

4196: 4122: 4115: 4063: 4049: 4032: 4016: 3961: 3933: 3919: 3901: 3886: 3872: 3857: 3814: 3795: 3760: 3682: 3668: 3648: 3605: 3582: 3453: 3436: 3329: 3315: 3301: 3286: 3222: 3206: 3181: 3099: 3078: 2955: 2936: 2922: 2907: 2890: 2876: 2859: 2778: 2755: 2741: 2723: 2708: 2688: 2673: 2616: 2533: 2519: 2501: 2465: 2450: 2425: 2418: 2384: 2372: 2302: 2270: 2247: 2197: 2175: 2070: 2015: 1976: 1962: 1936: 1905: 1890: 1827: 1809: 1795: 1777: 1761: 1749: 1720: 1697: 1683: 1660: 1636: 1607: 1593: 1568: 1553: 1528: 1513: 1484: 1418: 1402: 1386: 1369: 1354: 1342: 1328: 1316: 1302: 1287: 1205: 1191: 1169: 1059: 1045: 1030: 957: 943: 935: 925: 910: 902: 893: 874: 866: 834: 819: 782: 768: 753: 739: 724: 709: 666: 618: 541: 498: 482: 400: 363: 348: 320: 306: 290: 266: 204: 90: 74: 4079: 3987:. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may 3720:. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may 3254:. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may 2804:. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may 2041:. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may 1001:. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may 567:. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may 1226: 884:. Why don't you READ something about aviation before you WRITE about it? 4174:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

3831: 3148:

is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Knowledge (XXG)

2493:

and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.

1498:. (Be sure to remove the old merge tag). Thank you and happy editing, — 3250:

for personal attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to

2349:

In the normal course of editing the principle that applies is that of

391:

and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.

1786:, while you will quickly get blocked if you continue to restore it. 1268:

for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant

845:

Excuse me! I do not appreciate the insult of being called Mr Gump!

455:

for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant

58:

while they become accustomed to Knowledge (XXG) and its intricacies.

3848:

to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

2037:

for sock puppetry. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to

1711:

please ask so we can help you understand how it all works, thanks.

1307:

PS If you want people to listen to you, stop talking in templates.

858:. Otherwise, continued edit-warring could see you in violation of 3980: 3837: 3824: 3728:, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: 3262:, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: 4177:

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review

2746:

I'm done talking to you, bully. Read dispute resolution rules.

2596:, which states that an editor must not perform more than three 2289:

Do NOT try to edit the existing ones because you'll get banned.

1845:, which states that an editor must not perform more than three 1244:, which states that an editor must not perform more than three 431:, which states that an editor must not perform more than three 518:

regarding a possible violation of Knowledge (XXG)'s policy on

20: 4108:, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the 2679:

Surprise, surprise. Knowledge (XXG) and its administrators.

2658:, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the 4078: 3966: 3695: 3485: 3339: 3233: 2981: 2783: 2621: 2543: 2286:

Do NOT try to create new articles because they'll be stolen.

2075: 2020: 1818: 1217: 1067: 976: 546: 404: 96: 633:

makes the consensus process extremely clear: if you make a

3952:

Blocked for one year due to violations of the BLP policy.

2834:. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek 597:. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek 4096:

from editing because it appears that you are not here to

3979:

from editing for one year for your BLP transgression at

3612:

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please

3460:

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please

3106:

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please

2204:

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please

211:

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please

3632:

Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

3480:

Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

3126:

Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

2224:

Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

1768:

warning you that you've started an edit war. Thank you.

516:

Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

231:

Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

4158:

is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the

3877:

You do understand you reply is extremely rude, right?--

3771: 3767: 3555: 3551: 3545: 3536: 3532: 3518: 3514: 3510: 3409: 3405: 3399: 3390: 3386: 3372: 3368: 3364: 3051: 3047: 3041: 3032: 3028: 3014: 3010: 3006: 2867:

History is a tough thing to bend and I know I'm right.

2587:

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being

2387:, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 2145: 2141: 2135: 2126: 2122: 2108: 2104: 2100: 2004:

Knowledge (XXG):Sockpuppet investigations/Le Grand Bleu

1836:

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being

1495: 1445:, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 1235:

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being

1132: 1128: 1122: 1113: 1109: 1095: 1091: 1087: 850: 802: 422:

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being

166: 162: 156: 147: 143: 129: 125: 121: 625:

I wanted to make some additional comments here. Your

2838:, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request 601:, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request 3840:. Dead links should not be deleted. Instead, please 3493: