User talk:4twenty42o/Archive1

My edit to nya
while i appreciate your concern for the homepage of my school i reall think you should lay off or delete the page alltogether. the page is barely more than an ad for it, and my edits (most of which you havent removed) serve the purpose of ruining this ad since wikipedia is not a place for ads fine i cant even complain anymore? wheres my right to free speech?

My edits to Krav Maga
While the fact that Matt Damon uses Krav does check out, that in no way was my responsibility to prove. The burden of proof falls on the editor who made the addition, not other editors, and especially not those who remove unsourced information. I simply removed it partially because it was unsourced, and also because doing so is in the interest of keeping that list short and not letting it become listcruft. If it continues to grow it's going to become a pointless list and will just be deleted altogether. As a matter of fact, I'm not so sure it shouldn't be deleted now. Khalfani Khaldun  00:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

You do not have to explain anything to me. I really dont care THAT much..We're just different types of editors.. Takes all kinds.. eh? If i came off as rude, it wasn't intended.. -4twenty42o (talk) 03:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)
The September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Glock pistol
You weren't ignored. The first comment was directly replied to, while the second one was not, because you only posted a single sentence saying you agree with Koalorka without explaining anything as to why you feel that a '1st generation' Glock is a better choice than a '3rd generation' Glock for the lead image. There was nothing to reply to, so no reply was made. If you actually bring something to the discussion, you have a better chance of receiving a direct reply.

Don't confuse not receiving a direct reply with being ignored. Jersey emt (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

question
who was editing using your name? [] Theserialcomma (talk) 01:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * which edits did your brother do under your name? perhaps you could strike through the comments he did under your name or undo the edits. Theserialcomma (talk) 02:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2009
This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive comments. The next time you make a personal attack (diff), you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.  Sandstein  06:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

for. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text  below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Wow that really was kind of dickish and definitely pointless. Cheers!! - 4twenty42o (talk) 08:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 420, I understand your problem with your brother but this BLOCK was not really something I thought you'd deserved just because you've said something here that should have been spoken to Ryan in your private capacity. But still, just chill out for 12 hours and at the same time ask Ryan to behave himself or else the next block might be much longer. (PS: As an older sibling, you ought to set an example for your younger brother! I'm not blaming you or anything, just stating the facts... and ultimately it's your call.) --Dave1185 (talk) 08:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Right on man I appreciate it. I don't really care if I am blocked. I got 6 neighbors with wifi. That guy is really being a dick though!! Humility man!! That's whats important!! I'll see you around! Cheers!! - 4twenty42o (talk) 09:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Manners, manners! Anymore name callings by you might get you into further trouble (and I hate to see that!), your little brother is one prime example for you to see (which IMO, he totally deserved it!). --Dave1185 (talk) 09:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Tagged!
Use this trout on your brother the next time he misbehaves here on Wikipedia. Cheers~! --Dave1185 (talk) 02:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Eliseo Soriano
Please review your edit to this page, and the article history. The information was removed by more than one editor with the explanation that it is from a self-published source and thus unacceptable. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 04:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I simply reverted a page blanking with no edit summary.. I suggest when you edit you provide an edit summary to prevent this in the future.. - 4twenty42o (talk) 04:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * And I suggest you look beyond the edit summary to the history and substence of the edit itself. Vandals have been know to leave false messages so looking at the text changes are essential to accuracy. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 04:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Tell ya what, I'll look at it right now. This is of some obvious importance to you. What exactly is your problem with the article? From what I can tell it appears as though yourself and Felix are on opposite ends of the topic.. Please enlighten me.. - 4twenty42o (talk) 04:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The importance to me is following the reliable sources guidelines. Simply put, self-published info shouldn't be used to promote a person (especially when it's reinserted because of a bad edit). I'm pleased that you're looking at it again. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 04:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I will get back with you on your talk shortly.. I am going to solicit the advice of another editor and review policy. - 4twenty42o (talk) 04:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Hope you continue at New World Order (conspiracy theory)
User:Loremaster has Reverted your edit. I Reverted back. So I hope you join the discussion. (Leave next messages, if any, on my Talk page please.) --Ludvikus (talk) 10:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * How I could stand it you ask? What do you think of this latest event ? --Ludvikus (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have an interest in adding your comments. Thank you. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your sensitivity. Have a nice day, or night, wherever you are. --Ludvikus (talk) 04:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Nice message from you. Thanks. There aren't enough nice people in this world, unfortunately. There's another nice person besides you that I've met. But it's disappointing to see this kind of stuff in cyberspace where we can only read what we say to one another. So much the worse for the world of flesh and blood. --Ludvikus (talk) 04:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Please stop violating wikipedia's rules by removing a well-cited edit.
Thanks! Wouldn't want you to be seen as a hypocrite or supporter of racism. Just helping you out, buddy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.250.13.4 (talk) 19:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

regarding 1953 Iranian coup d'état‎‎
Hi: Would you please, as I requested, go point by point down my edits, which took a considerable amount of time, and state objections individually instead of reverting wholesale? I have put my edits forward with a straightforward explanation for all of them. I have heard no objections, save that I failed to gain prior approval for them, which is a complete misreading of the requirements of consensus. Ray Talk 19:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

3rr
Hey, I didn't want to template a regular, so uhhh, I should inform you that you're likely to get blocked if you keep reverting. What he is doing is clearly annoying, but it isn't obviously vandalism. Just be careful not to revert anymore. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 20:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

November 2009
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Leuko Talk/Contribs 23:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Involuntary euthanasia


Ratel has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

why did you revert my edits?
on groping. any reason? 119.173.81.176 (talk) 07:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I moved a section, your edits put that section in twice. I assume that was a mistake on your part. I have corrected it. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 07:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up
I read the sources, and they don't support what the IP is trying to imply. There's no reliable evidence that this is not a real problem. I have a feeling he's trying to create undue weight in implying that these thousands (tens of thousands) of reports are all fake. Is this type of edit a common problem on this article? Would semi-protection help? --NellieBly (talk) 07:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually this is all rather random. Sparks up every once in a while. I don't think its anything that cannt be solved with a little patience. Thank you for all of your hard work though, it is much appreciated. - 4twenty42o (talk) 11:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser on Eli Soriano Mushroom Editors
Hi, when you have time kindly initiate a checkuser on perma-blocked Felix Natalo and other recently-surfaced usernames and IPs making the same troublesome edits. At present, I am having problems with my computer and it's taking me so much time to go from one page to the other. Thanks! – Shannon Rose Talk 23:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

thank you
for the message left on my talk page, it is nice to encounter an editor that seems like a human being, not just someone who quotes an obscure rule in order to make their edit seem acceptable.

I know that I can be a really rude editor at times, and I have taken it too personally when things don't go my way, but overall I remove things that I think are in the best interests of wikipedia to have removed - the fact that not everyone agrees with me should make me realise that perhaps not all of my decisions are correct.

I don't know if I deserved a block or not, but if I didn't deserve it for that little disagreement, I probably deserved it for a previous edit that I managed to get away with - I don't vandalise wikipedia so I doubt I am ever going to get a seriously long term block, but given my lack of patience I assume that I will get a few more little blocks for incivility or something similar. I hope I can calm down enough to walk away from the next drama I encounter that does not go my way.

but anyway, your message was a breath of fresh air for me, it is nice to read something that has a personal touch, rather than the usual "you broke x rule, I will report you to ANI" BS that turns up on my talk page.

Feel free to keep an eye on my edits and point out to me that I am being an idiot in the future, it might help me become a better editor. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 13:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Editions in Anarchism
Thanks for pay attention to the editions. Any time appears people who try to erase o hide the mayorital and present sense of political anarchism (a minority I agree) to show a subcultural and "very" minority branch, I believe with the purpose of deny the current importance of anarcho-capitalism. But also could be only to show their current like a very very important one (and without references or with a incorrect use of the same).--Nihilo 01 (talk) 05:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh sorry, excuse my English. Please check the discussion and check the general and schoolar references, because I'm temporary retired form Wikipedia probably until next year and probably I couldn't participate constantly. --Nihilo 01 (talk) 05:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!
As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)
The October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Much appreciated ...
There are a few ridiculous things which must be done to balance the universe. lol

Thanks for your kind salute amidst my doing this one... If I find a pony in all this, it's yours. :) Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk) 00:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Misunderstanding
Please do not misunderstand. I am not edit warring. On the wp:when to use tables, I am trying to improve the article. I noticed some text that had not been written well, so I saved many times. I had to put the header on it so people would not think that it was inadvertent vandalism. Please retract your observations.174.3.111.148 (talk) 05:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

November 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Battle of France, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.--78.128.178.220 (talk) 01:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit of User:TheLetterM's Talk Page
How was what I wrote vandalism? I was asking him to post the article he deleted, that was mine called "Lots of poop" on my talk page so I can post it on another web site. How it this vandalism? Please respond. --Jesuzfreak777 02:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Userboxs
How can I add a userbox to my user page?(Jesuzfreak777 02:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC))


 * Copy the code into your space.. and dont forget to sign your messages with 4 ~ tildes - 4twenty42o (talk) 02:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The Art of War.
It's a stretch to include Arthashastra in the See Also section of the Art of War article. Why? It devotes only a very small portion on warfare and is obviously not a specialist treatise on warfare or its related strategy or tactics. If we were to relax the standards, we might as well list Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.62.185.149 (talk) 02:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The Arthashastra also contained, other than treatise and duties of the king, ways to protect the kingdom as well as how to properly employ weapons of war. - 4twenty42o (talk) 02:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons Files
I copied the name of a file posted on wikimedia commons to my user page but the right photo didnt come up. Is there anything I should know, (i put File:Roblox.jpg and nothing popped up on my user page,and i put File:Halo-Hunter-graphic.png and nothing popped up on my user page.) (Jesuzfreak777 02:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)) .)

Talkback
&mdash; Oli OR Pyfan! 04:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you advise why my edits Nathan Rees have been reverted and what protocol I need to follow. Information given completely accurate and citable. New user.Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Accurate data (talk • contribs) 04:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Message received and reading. May come back to you for advice. Thanks so far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Accurate data (talk • contribs) 05:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

 * Also, thanks for your efforts at Recent changes.  Tide  rolls  05:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Lewis Carroll
Think you might have been a bit quick of the mark in reverting, and certainly in tagging the user's talk page Declan Clam (talk) 05:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

A Love Like Pi
I do not understand why you are warning Ms.Matchd for vandalising that article. She is working on building it, and I have seen no vandalism there. Can you please explain? Lady of  Shalott  05:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

This guy does not support our troops.
Are you an american? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SupportOurTroopsUSA (talk • contribs) 06:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

--
i'm not vandalism --125.24.52.79 (talk) 06:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

US Army
I work in the US Army as a soldier. Where do you work at? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SupportOurTroopsUSA (talk • contribs) 06:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

About Thomas Wayne (and Martha)
Okay. Civil. Right. Breeathe. The GIPU's right. He was a little sloppy, but he's right. As far as I can tell, Detective Comics #33 was written by Bill Finger and Gardner Fox. (There's some dispute about how much Bill contributed, but that's a separate issue.) Fox was picking up Bill's slack for a few ishs. Jerry, meanwhile, wasn't really involved until 1940. (See Robin, Joker, etc.) Thus, I reverted you and added citation. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 19:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

NO!
DON"T BAN! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.148.95.177 (talk) 19:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

....
Anyway... umm..... ....

so.... uhh..... hi....

huh?
you have no idea how reasonable i am. :)

i figure if alcohol is legall
then.. they prolly oughta legalize marijuana too.

i am a law abiding citizen. i try to be 100%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.148.95.177 (talk) 19:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

hmm.....
see ....

what annoys me about wikipedia....

jimbo wales makes money off wikia.... and wikia used follow links on wikipedia for a while....

now everything is no follow....

jimbo wales makes money off the features of wikipedia in that sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.148.95.177 (talk) 19:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

......
........

........

........

it's a great idea........ wikipedia....

was Mr. Wales the sole coflounder?

i mean... was jimbo wales the sole founder?

i mean was the the sole flounder?

i mean... was he the sole co-flounder?

does it matter?

not to me. but to me it matters... it does not matter to me. mostly doesn't. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.148.95.177 (talk) 19:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Links
It's funny you ask people to not get upset after you post large stop signs in caps! AND threaten to block people from the site! You should be the one to remember we were all once new! Geezzz. Anyways, I just want to show good examples of rugs for my class. So why is it illegal for me to do so when I try to take then from nazmiyalantiquerugs.com? How can I link? --Antiquerugs32 (talk) 20:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)Antiquerugs32

Follow Up
Clearly, I have read those links. There are external links on the Persian Rugs article that bring you to a few commercial sites!! Why are those allowed and mine is not? Please explain. These sites may be commercial, but they are also extremly informative. Please help. --Antiquerugs32 (talk) 20:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

stopzilla
I believe the many edits by 74.223.130.162 are actually by an employee of IS3 (stopzilla's maker) I find that IP address as being in the same area as the IS3 headquarters. What (if anything) can be done about this ? --69.126.0.230 (talk) 20:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there a way to see if Ferretx is the same person ? Similar history of sanitizing the stopzilla page .. --69.126.0.230 (talk) 20:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Little speed demon
Man, a few days after you get rollback and already beating me? You can't do that ;) Keep up the good work.  A8  UDI  21:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Identity document
Hi. You recently reverted an edit at the above article stating that "it appeared to be unconstructive". Could you say why please? It appears a perfectly valid and constructive edit to me. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 23:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you also amend the comment at User talk:77.28.113.118 to one more 'welcoming'. Thanks. RashersTierney (talk) 23:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Many thanks :-) RashersTierney (talk) 01:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * np thanks for lookin out. - 4twenty42o (talk) 01:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism
Sorry but i think u are wrong. I was improving the article. Expanding it. How is it vandalism. Why dont u see what i added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.223.124 (talk) 01:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Greek Street
So your honest opinion is that "There are also several brothels, featuring the famous 'models'. Man does not live of restaurants and bars only." is more encyclopedic than "There are also several "walk-ups" (providers of legal prostitution) along the street."? I disagree quite strongly. My edit was neither a test nor an experiment, and there's no need to put a note on my talk page to that effect. I am an experienced editor and occasionally make anonymous edits, as is my right. If you have a problem with the edit, please make a comment on the discussion page. Immediately (within 1 minute?) reverting a valid edit and categorizing it as little better than vandalism is not making a constructive addition to the wikipedia community. 169.233.38.156 (talk) 04:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

South Park: Critical Reception
All south park episode article include a Critical Response/Reception section and yet you delete the section from Dances with Smurfs. Admittedly it had been clearly vandalized but I'm wondering why you removed the section instead of reverting the vandalism. Perhaps you didn't like how I paraphrased the review but that is only reason to try and paraphrase the review in another way not to delete the review and certainly not to delete the whole section. You seem to be acting in good faith but I cannot think of any good faith reason to delete the section but I'm hoping you will explain here why you deleted it? (Note: Please respond here on your own talk page to keep the conversation together.) -- Horkana (talk) 05:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am a big fan of south park myself. I removed the section because I do not understand the reasoning for those sections in an encyclopedia. However in the spirit of friendship I would not oppose you re-adding it. I obviously did not see the vandalism, but I do appreciate you coming to me and talking instead of edit warring or worse. Regards - 4twenty42o (talk) 05:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Every good episode article includes critical response. (Every good film article too.) There are editors who need a citation to tell them the sky is blue and who believe if a tree that falls in the woods with no one there doesn't make any sound. They get unhappy if an episode doesn't have critical response because they think it cannot possibly be notable without it having been reviewed and someone else telling them it is notable. I can understand why you do not think they are essential but there's lots of things in wikipedia I don't think are essential either but I don't delete it unless I really believe it is getting in the way or just plain wrong. Sure we could have good articles without critical response sections but the articles are better with them. Also editors will insist on citations for each and every Cultural references, reviews are the best place to find those references and other information related to the episode, which is a big part of the reason I include the reviews.
 * Another editor has since re-added the same review source and a few others and used different phrasing to provide a "Reception" section (I labelled it "Critical Response"), I hope he reused my edit and didn't have to waste more time typing up the citation again himself, hate to see good faith edits wasted. I was really just trying to figure out if there was something I'd missed or done wrong.
 * I'm not sure I've expressed myself very well here but I think I understand you and I'm just asking you to be careful about deleting, especially something that has a citation. Thanks. -- Horkana (talk) 05:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

World Genseiryū Karate-dō Federation
You should not take sides, but in fairness revert back to BEFORE today's revert war began with Mario Roering's deletions. All I did was to undo/revert what Mario initiated. Please get your facts straight before accusing me and taking sides with Mario Roering who is in fact the culprit here. See my reply on Talk:World Genseiryū Karate-dō Federation. Peter Lee (talk) 06:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Good luck with this article...based on the level of rhetoric, I'm guessing that neither of these two will want to compromise. Thank you for trying though! Frmatt (talk) 06:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * smh.. Yea I gotta wonder what makes some people tick.. Peter I am most certainly not taking sides. I reverted to the smallest, easiest to sort out version. I am not trying to slight you. It was simply the most expedient way to find somewhere to begin. Please adjust your comments to include even the slightest understanding of the assumption of good faith. I am not biased one way or the other and I am more concerned about improving the article and encyclopedia than I am making either one of you feel better than the other.   - 4twenty42o (talk) 06:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No matter your good intentions, what I see is what I can take into account. And what you did, is exactly taking sides with Mario Roering by keeping HIS deletions and asking me to back off. If you had reverted back to the last edit as before Mario Roering started this latest edit/deletion war, then I may have believed you. Sorry for that, but you must try to put yourself in my position as well. My edits has been very well explained, and has absolutely nothing to do with slandering, putting forward accusations or any of the sort. All I have done is expanding the article with facts, which I have either experienced myself, as I was in the middle of it, or have gathered from my countless interviews and facts/documents gathering for almost 20 years now. I have been involved with Genseiryu Karate for more than 30 years, and have seen, experienced and been part of Genseiryu and has taken an active part of its expansion in Europe since 1996. Mario Roering is merely a newcomer and an aggressive subservant of Konno, who is a self proclaimed authority on Genseiryu. Just because Mario Roering is the one shouting the loudest, does not mean that he is the one we should listen to. Even though Mario does not agree with the inclusion of the facts I have provided, then they are without any shred of doubt very important for the understanding of what the World Genseiryu Karate Federation is. Mario Roering can even dispute whatever he want, but as I was there watching it happen, and making it happen and being the person making the contact as a courier of letters and messages, I am indeed the most important source of information on the matter. Mario Roering was never even close to any of these things, thus any and all of his crap talk about slandering etc. is totally misplaced. Even though it might not be well received by Mario, he cannot change the facts of the past, and it is my opinion, that everyone should be offered the chance to get the entire story so they can make up their own mind in any way they want. If Mario Roering want to add some other true researched facts, then of course he is welcome. But simply deleting my contributions and at the same time calling me a lier, a fraud and accusing me of slandering is an outrage, especially when this is not stopped by the sysops at Wikipedia. That is in fact why I started the Genseipedia in 2005, which is also why I kept away from Wikipedia for a while. Not much have changed here at Wikipedia during that time unfortunately. Peter Lee (talk) 07:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)