User talk:Mbhiii

Fishers method
Hi Mbhii. I noticed your creation of "Fishers method," with the text "(see Fisher's method)." We have a function which allows you to create pages for alternate spellings of an article title that automatically redirect a person to the correct article, called appropriately a redirect. Please see Redirect. I have changed the homemade version to conform to this markup. Oh, and Welcome to Wikipedia!--Fuhghettaboutit 12:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I would also recomend you using the redirect function instead of "see article". All you have to do, to insert the text #REDIRECT Fisher's Method into the article, and it will automatically go for the given (in this case Fisher's Method) article. In case you just write see, they won't find it, especially if you do not youse any internal link. --Serinde 12:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

conventions
Hello. I've brought Fisher's method into conformance with some of the usual Wikipedia conventions. Note that:

Michael Hardy 18:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Words should not be capitalized merely because they're in an article title. The first letter is always capital, and in links, the first letter, unlike the later letters, is case-insensitive.  Accordinly, I hit the "move" button and changed it to "Fisher's method", with a lower-case initial "m".  The edit history gets moved along with it, so if you look at Fisher's method (with a lower-case "m"), you're the initial creator of it, and if you look at Fisher's Method, with a capital "M", you find a redirect page whose edit history says it was created by me at the time I changed the title.
 * The title phrase, Fisher's method, should be in bold-face at its first appearance in the article, usually in the first sentence.
 * Subscripts, superscripts, and mathematical notation (TeX) are available; see my recent edits to Fisher's method.
 * Belated thanks for all your help on that one, Sample size, Mallow's Cp, Stepwise regression, and others in the last year. --MBHiii 18:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding signatures
Actually, signatures are not meant to be used in articles, only on talk pages. This applies no matter how much of the article you have written. See Ownership of articles for more information, specifically the section "Don't sign what you don't own." Khatru2 16:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yup, I see it and stand corrected. --Mbhiii 17:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Bushcronium warnings
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 21:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Is there a way to find humorous entries related to a serious subject in Wikipedia? - Not really. We strive for neutral point of view, and that doesn't leave us much room for jokes. If you want to see some funny stuff that has been put into articles before, you can look at Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense, but don't try to get yourself into there, it might be considered vandalism. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

For anyone curious, here's the joke: New Element Discovered


 * A major research institute has just announced the discovery of the densest matter yet known to exist. The new element has been named "Bushcronium."


 * Bushcronium has one quasi-neutron, 12 assistant neutrons, 75 deputy neutrons and 224 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 311. These are held together by dark force particles called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons. W is the symbol for Bushcronium.


 * Bushcronium's mass actually increases over time, as morons randomly interact with various elements in the atmosphere and become assistant deputy neutrons in a Bushcronium molecule, forming isodopes. This characteristic of moron-promotion leads some scientists to believe that Bushcronium is formed when morons reach a certain quantitative concentration level.  This hypothetical quantity is referred to as "critical morass."


 * When catalyzed with money, Bushcronium activates Foxnewsium, an element that radiates, on orders of magnitude, more energy than Bushcronium, albeit as incoherent noise. Foxnewsium has 1/2 as many peons but attracts twice as many morons.


 * You may want to check out Uncyclopedia, which is a Wikia-hosted wiki designed to be a satire/parody of Wikipedia. It might have a place there. – &#160;Þ&#160;  05:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Summaries
When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this: The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. &mdash; Chris53516 (Talk) 18:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Your edits to Linear regression
If you make extensive edits to an article, please note the following requests: I have reverted your edits for the time being, and invite you to continue making constructive contributions to Wikipedia. -Amatulic 20:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Provide an edit summary of your changes. Massive edits without summaries may be reverted as vandalism.
 * 2) Provide an explanation or reason for your changes, either in the article's talk page or the edit summary. Your edits to Linear regression changed "delta" to "theta" without any explanation of why. "Delta" has been acceptable so far for every other editor of this article.
 * 3) Read Manual of style, in particular the Wikilinking section of that article. Your edits created wiki-links for every instance of the word "parameter" in the Linear regression article, creating many redundant links. This isn't necessary.

Belated response to above two entries. Though "delta" works perfectly well (even implying a rate of change), "theta" is vastly more often preferred for representing a parameter to be estimated, and ease of recognition and legibility are key. I note, with content, the total rewrite by someone using the convention specific to regression which is to use "beta" for those coefficients. --MBHiii 19:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Peace war game
You call User:trialsanderrors's redirection of Peace war game "unilateral". The extensive discussion of this on Talk:Chicken (game), Talk:Chicken (game) and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Game theory make it abundantly clear that redirection was more of a consensus than a unilateral decision. I wouldn't really care, but the article has remained without reliable sources for some time now which is a problem because it seems to agree poorly with reality. Pete.Hurd 21:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hawk-Dove, Chicken, etc. were in such flux that it took them settling down to agreed upon categories and representations for me to see your points. Peace war game now conforms.

I agree with you on expecting any payoff matrix, but some people (not me) are still of the belief that a very extensive matrix could adequately deal with reality. I read through the powerpoint, I'm not sure what you intend I see in it. It's a good powerpoint-- for explaining these and other aspects of game theory-- but it has nothing to do with War. Beyond the fact that the section is problematic it is also far too detailed and extensive to be on the main page (and as a subset of another section). Vandalism? I'm new to wikipedia but I thought I was following the "be bold" policy. No one here has posted anything in the talk page about this section here, and there has been no discussion regarding its inclusion/exclusion. Also, as far as I'm concerned, it's not vandalism if I brought the issue up on the talk page and have good intentions for the article. I don't see how re-including or even writing the section without discussing or posting anything here doesn't amount to vandalism itself, using your definition. -DWRZ 22:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Some advice
Mbhiii, I understand where you are coming from on the AfD for Unholy Alliance... but you are shooting yourself in the foot in several ways. I have learned from experience that the Admins who decide AfD's do not like it when someone makes too many comments. One or two comments to clarify a point are OK, but commenting to rebut each and every delete vote will not win you much support. In general tone, Don't argue against the delete... argue for a keep. Make your best argument and then sit back... let others have their say, if you made a convincing argument others will support you. I actually think a lot of the material you want to add is valid and worthy of inclusion in an article... but you are going about it in the wrong way... a lot of it constitutes original research by our rules. You have to find reliable sources that talk about this and report what those say, and you need to have your sources ready before you add things to the article. Good luck. Blueboar 20:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Southern mafia
I have added a "" template to the article Southern mafia, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Arkyan 21:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk page formatting
When responding to another user's comments, please respond beneath theirs. I understand that you want to respond point-by-point, but placing your comments within theirs breaks the flow of the original comment and makes it hard for others to follow the discussion. Please see WP:TALK for more information. – &#160;Þ&#160;  01:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Unholy Alliance
Sorry, I didn't realize what you were doing (I was wondering why you put the article on the talk page). Often what people do is create a page in the user namespace such as User:Mbhiii/sandbox when they want to incrementally work on an article. Like I said at the AfD, I think there's nothing inherently objectable with the subject of the article. Wikipedia has sorta developed it's own conventions, and sometimes people that've been here longer forget that they aren't universal. Good luck on your article! --gwc 04:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:SYNT
Mbhiii, I don't think you fully get the concept behind WP:SYNT... and since an AfD nomination is not really the place to hold a tutorial on how wikipedia works, I thought I would shift the discussion here so that we can discuss this further.

According to Wikipedia policy, we can not add Original Research to articles. This includes creating a synthesis (stating or implying that A + B = C). "Statement A" might be backed with all sorts of citations to a reliable source... "Statement B" might be backed with all sourts of citations to a reliable source... but unless "Conclusion C" is ALSO backed with a reliable source the rules state that you can not state or imply that conclusion.

You say that you are just doing a "compare and contrast", and that this is common... perhaps this is true in essay writing, but this is not an essay. You should not do "compare and contrast" in an encyclopedia... our job isn't to analize facts (which is what a compare and contrast is)... our job is simply to summarize pre-existing knowledge. If someone else has done a comparison, or has contrasted two pieces of information, we can say that they did so and that they reached certain conclusions... but we can not do so on our own.

Has this helped? Blueboar 18:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:SYN, "that precise analysis (A+B=C expressed by the author) must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia."

In the Smith and Jones case, the author analyzed what Jones did (A) in light of some standard the author chose (B) to assert Smith may have been wrong about Jones (C) without citing a souce who agrees with the analysis. He takes A from one source, B from another, and asserts C on his own.

But in Southern mafia, there is no "Conclusion C." What are you saying are the A+B=C? If you assert I imply C, first of all that's not in WP:SYN, and if you do so on the basis of two different meanings of a term sitting on the same page, you'd better not read any dictionaries, your head might explode from possibilities.

Finally, there is nothing I "say in the article ... that connects a traditional and ongoing criminal enterprise to The Southern Mafia in the Senate." - User:Mr.Z-man It's him, making it up.

Note, wording changes to be less of a DICDEF and focus more on the two, separated subjects - no HOAX. --MBHiii 13:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Please keep discussion impersonal
I appreciate your desire to not have the articles Unholy Alliance and Southern Mafia excluded from Wikipedia. However you need to make your arguments based on the merits of the content in question and stop calling in to question the motivations, beliefs, or percieved fitness of the editors who oppose you. Please read up on Wikipedia policy concerning this issue at WP:NPA. Most specifically I would like to call to your attention the second example under "What is considered a personal attack?" that reads-


 * Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views -- regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme.

On multiple occasions you have called in to question someone's affiliations as a means of attempting to discredit their viewpoints, by either pointing out their religious affiliations or more recently by attempting to discredit me for a professed deletionist philosophy. Not only does attempting to downplay someone's opinion by pointint out what you percieve to be a conflict of interest not help the debate, but it is explicitly prohibited by Wikipedia policy.

Accusing me of having a hidden agenda is extremely libelous and does not have any place in a Wikipedia discussion. I'm going to ask you to refrain from making similar jabs at myself or others in regards to their beliefs or opinions, in accordance with the WP:NPA policy. I believe you have a lot of potential as an editor here but going to the extreme of trying to discredit other editors does nothing to improve the Wikipedia as a project, and does little to help make your points.

Again, to quote the NPA policy, Comment on content, not on the contributor. Keep discussion impersonal and I believe you will find the editorial process is better for us all.  A r k y a n  &#149; (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's all a matter of degree that should be perfectly valid to discuss. See "Iceberg" on User:Mbhiii. It depends on whether the position "ought not to" influence the debate and how material it is to the debate. I'm not saying anyone should be excluded from debate; I'm saying a user's previously stated bias should be given huge weight by others, especially the Admin reviewing an AfD log, as a matter of WK policy. To the "opinions discounted" idea, I'd like to add anyone who argues in extremely bad form. For instance, in citing the 2nd WP:NPA you overlooked the 3rd, implied "Threats of legal action." Libel necessarily involves "a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual." Repeatedly arguing in bad form so as to raise the possibility of hidden agenda doesn't make recognition of that an assertion of hidden agenda as fact. One should argue in a manner that preserves both the fact and appearance of propriety, including recusing oneself when appropriate. --MBHiii 20:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It is neither up to you nor I to decide when someone is fit for debate. That is the whole point of what I cited in the NPA policy - it is not your duty nor your prerogative to point out a bias, perceived or otherwise.  Your continuing attacks on my credibility and continuing to try and discredit me is growing tiresome.  I tried asking nicely so now I will put it bluntly.  Debates on Wikipedia are about content and not contributors.  Cease attacking myself directly.  The same also goes in regards to your personal attacks against Blueboar and others.  If you do it again I will not ask so nicely and will escalate the issue as per WP:NPA.  Thank you.  A r k y a n  &#149; (talk) 00:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you see this as a personal attack, but if you keep arguing using fundamentally bad forms, I shall keep pointing it out and asking that your opinions be discounted. Repeatedly doing so, with no apparent interest in reform on your part, should raise a question as to your motives. You may in fact be just a stubborn, otherwise bright guy who's slow to change, as a matter of personal posture to the world. I stand by what I've written; let's take it to the Admins. --MBHiii 18:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Trying to discredit an argument is one thing - trying to discredit the person making the argument is another. More to the point, the former is what debates are all about, the latter is a violation of policy.  Since you have persisted in this behavior and continued making this a personal issue on the DRV, I am seeking 3rd party input on this matter.  A r k y a n  &#149; (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * sigh ... it is not a personal attack to point out that a person's opinion should be discounted when he uses a bad form of argument and that refusing to acknowledge what he's done should further invalidate his opinion. --MBHiii 13:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

continued from DRV
I am replying to you here because the topic was drifting from the purpose of DRV.

From Deletion review/Log/2007 March 23:  Comment - an editor who uses a bad form of argument, refuses to acknowledge it, and keeps harping on old, long-since addressed and now irrelevant points, should not be assumed to be well-meaning. Note, this last person, previously critical of both articles, seems to care nothing about Blueboar and Arkyan using bad forms of argument. Repeat, these articles need protection from a couple of otherwise well-spoken, but seemingly disingenuous editors who abuse the deletion process with bad arguments to blank subjects they find "inherently not inclusionworthy." (Read the articles.) --MBHiii 14:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC) While it may seem to you that other editors are acting out of bad faith by refusing to consider your arguments, it may be that they find your arguments unconvincing. Some topics are inherently unworthy of inclusion -- see Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

To assume good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. We should assume that Blueboar and Arkyan are well-meaning editors absent evidence to the contrary, as well as the multitude of editors who may wish to contribute to the article in the future. Page protection is an extreme solution usually reserved for pages that are frequently vandalized. If there is evidence that a user has behaved poorly, edited maliciously, or otherwise disrupted Wikipedia, there are mechanisms available to you to invite community oversight. (See Resolving disputes.) If the behavior is serious and persistent, that user may be blocked or partially banned from certain articles. You should be aware that the community will look at your behavior as well.

Finally, the closing admin of any discussion has an obligation not to simply count heads but to also carefully consider and weigh the arguments of all parties. Even if those opposing you made faulty arguments, they should not affect the admin's decision if your arguments are superior. – &#160;Þ&#160;  02:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note, there are eight examples listed there, none of which have any relevance to the contested articles, and, once again, you refuse to look at (or understand?) the points I raise about the form of argument used. It would help to gain credibility with me (if that matters) to preface your comments to me with a restatement of my argument to show you have at least an inkling of what I say. -MBHiii 12:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Respectively, yes, yes, but page protection probably needs to be used more often against such attacks as these. Using bad forms of argument so as to stay constantly on the attack is "behaving poorly" indeed. The rest ... yes. -MBHiii 12:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned to you before, please avoid putting your reply inside others' comments.
 * While I am happy to oblige you to encourage good communication, I am worried by your default assumption that I am refusing to cooperate. I offer some possibilities you might consider that would be more in line with common Wikipedia etiquette:
 * As you suggested, I have simply misunderstood your argument.
 * You have failed to appropriately explain your argument.
 * Your argument is itself flawed, not in line with Wikipedia policies and common practices, or otherwise unconvincing.
 * Now, as to your request: as I understand your argument, you feel that the issues raised in AfD were addressed in your subsequent changes.
 * You have suggested that the editors opposing you have demonstrated that they cannot fairly judge the article for the following reasons:
 * They hold conscious and unconscious biases in regards to the subject.
 * They make arguments using faulty reasoning.
 * They reject your sound arguments.
 * And so, you contend that their opinions in the matter should be disregarded.
 * I find this argument unconvincing and out of line with Wikipedia policies and practices.
 * Back to the rest of your comments, I did not mention WP:NOT because I expected "Unholy Alliance" to be listed there. The list is not exhaustive; it merely enumerates several classes which are clearly not worth of inclusion. I linked to the list to demonstrate that it's completely appropriate to conclude that a subject itself is inherently unworthy of inclusion.
 * Lastly, there are more appropriate solutions to an editor's bad behavior. If there are serious and persistent problems, they should be individually blocked or banned, which allows further work to continue on the article. – &#160;Þ&#160;  02:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * (When someone makes multiple points, interleaving replies is the best way to address them without repeating their entire text.-MBHiii 13:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC))
 * (All of which is mere boilerplate and demonstrates, in no sense, that you grasp what I wrote.-MBHiii 13:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC))
 * (Oh, I see, so this diversion to WP:NOT was an attempt to address an argument I did not make.-MBHiii 13:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC))
 * So, what do you intend to do about Blueboar's recent vandalism of Dixie Mafia, anything?-MBHiii 13:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Interleaving replies is usually not recommended because it breaks the original intended flow of thought, makes it difficult to distinguish which comments belong to whom, and is sometimes considered impolite. I am personally dismayed that you would choose to do so with me after I specifically requested otherwise twice.
 * If I fail to understand your argument, I hope that you can explain it to me in a manner I can understand.
 * I don't want to quote you to you, but you implied just above that deleting an article because the subject was not worthy of inclusion is a faulty argument. WP:NOT disagrees -- that's all I said or meant to say.
 * Having reviewed the edit in question, I can conclusively say it was not vandalism. A prerequisite of vandalism is the intent to "compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." (From Vandalism.) Content issues aside, I believe Blueboar when he says he acted in good faith. Good faith edits are never vandalism. – &#160;Þ&#160;  03:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Requests for comment
Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Requests for comment/Mbhiii, where you may want to participate.  A r k y a n  &#149; (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

re: Help with Unholy Alliance
I am not sure what you are requesting. I do not see you listed in the history so I'm guessing you were editing while not logged in. As such, I'm not sure what edits are yours. However, if you were the one adding this extra material, then that was correctly removed. Disambig pages are navigation aids and not articles. They should point readers to where material is discussed within Wikipedia. They are not for external links. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 21:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes that's me; I often move around during the day. There's an ADMIN User:Ezeu doing something I don't understand. Can you check Talk:Unholy_Alliance? Thanks, MBHiii 00:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

3RR Warning
Read 3RR. If you continue to revert, I will report you.Ultramarine 14:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio warning on Your Neighbor's Son
Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 18:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

American Civil War origins
Hi there. Welcome to Wikipedia. I've removed this edit I restored to give you time to offer a reliable source:
 * As early supporters of Henry Clay's American System, he and Clay put themselves in opposition to political forces in their own home states and probably cost Clay the Presidency. A federal tax system inspired by the work of Alexander Hamilton and later developed into the "National System" by German-American economist Friedrich List, the purpose was to develop American heavy industry and international commerce. Since iron, coal, and water power were mainly in the North, this tax plan was doomed to cause rancor in the South where economies were agriculture-based.

from the said article due to a legitimate challenge to its inclusion previously (although done in haste then) based upon Arbcom rulings regarding inclusion of "LaRouche" related material in articles not directly related to him. If you can provide us with a reliable source - I would be happy to support its inclusion in the article as it is accurate history. Best wishes. --Northmeister 04:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for page protection
I have declined your request to protect User_talk:63.98.135.196 as page protection is generally not appropriate for user talk pages. This is because a user talk page is the only way for other editors to communicate directly with one another, and protecting the page would in effect be closing the lines of communication. If you feel that an editor is being disruptive on a talk page, the way to handle the situation is to first discuss it with the editor on their own talk page, and if you are unable to come to some kind of resolution, please see our dispute resolution procedures. If you encounter a case of particularly disruptive editing patterns, you might want to post a notice at the administrators' noticeboard. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 20:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate tag use
This edit was highly inappropriate. Impersonating a Wikimedia Foundation employee is a gross violation and greatly disruptive. Any further disruption will be met with measures taken to protect the project. -- Avi (talk) 17:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Baloney not impersonating anyone; did it as myself. Be careful lest you libel me. It looked (from the page on which I found it) to be a valid way to call attention to your totally inappropriate meddling and micro-management. --MBHiii (talk) 20:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for impersonating foundation employees after being warned, and disruptive editing. 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. -- Avi (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Only foundation employees, or those authorized by them, may use pp-office. Please review the necessary polices and guidelines that will allow you to be a constructive member of the project, and refrain from disruptive editing or personal attacks. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 01:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello
Not sure if this is you, but you appear to be not logged in. Thanks! Lawrence §  t / e  17:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

RFA thanks
Thanks for your support in my RFA, that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. Lawrence §  t / e  18:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Arundhati Roy, again
Mbhiii, I'm sorry for warmongering, but I can't let your addition stand--there is simply nothing in Roy's piece that draws those kinds of conclusions. There is no discussion of before or after the cold war (only mention of it, later on), and the point about containment, while it is clear to me that that is a possible conclusion, is also not made by her. As such, your addition constitutes OR and I feel impelled to (continue to) remove it--for the fifth time now? Regards, Drmies (talk) 14:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

A simple fact, presented w/o controversy here, here, here, here, and here, with which, no doubt, Ms. Roy herself would agree. You say it's a stretch. If inspection or simple math suffices to see it, it isn't. The world seems to accept it. -MBHiii (talk) 15:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I really don't get why you insist on sticking this OR in, under your own name and your many IPs. What's the point? What does it add? She didn't say it, you say it. And no, the world does not accept your interpretation of Roy's article, and the Wikipedia community doesn't either, according to the talk page. Have you no faith in her own words? Drmies (talk) 22:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a true, accurate, informative summary of what she has compiled, placed in the context of her times, with which interpretation she would agree, no doubt. Others seem confident enough in it to mirror it without alteration. -MBHiii (talk) 16:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Pff. Others? That is no one's concern here, especially if those 'others' are simply WP mirrors, giving a snapshot of the article, as it happens right after you edited it. Besides, you didn't place it in any context, you just dumped it next to the Taliban, where it has no business being. You tried dozens of times, with your IPs, to stick in some argument about the Cold War which she never made; what reason other than preparing the reinsertion of that argument could there be for itemizing these details, which have no place whatsoever in a summary? So no, it is not a true and accurate and informative summary--it could be part of one but then you need to explain why so many other details are left out, why we shouldn't simply copy and paste the whole thing. Well, they're in a footnote now. All of them, with name and year. Drmies (talk) 19:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Reciprocity
M, I'm not sure what the issue, or your issue is, with the Quantum section; I haven't looked at that for a while. But if there's a problem with it, please bring it up, or just fix it. Using one problem as an excuse to re-inserted unsourced material is just WP:POINTy or something. Please don't go that way. Use the talk page if you have something to contribute to the discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 05:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

So now what's up? You found a source and added some good sourced stuff. Why go beyond that and add your own elaboration? Dicklyon (talk) 06:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Please take it to the article talk page. You can't source still to a forum; see WP:RS. And your interpretation is not the only reasonable one, as it premumes something special about the time 1 second, which is not the uniquely correct break point. Dicklyon (talk) 17:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

April 2009
Please do not add unsourced or original content. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Dicklyon (talk) 19:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Sock, etc.
M, if you are the same editor as User:65.246.126.130, you need to declare that, else I'll have to start a WP:SOCK investigation about you, which could land you in difficulties.

On the reciprocity (photography) article, I don't mind including the sourced power-law formula, but to put extra original words into propping up what is obviously an absurdly deficient model is not good for the article or for wikipedia. See WP:NOR. So cut it out. Further additions of unsourced material will be treated as vandalism. Dicklyon (talk) 05:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

See Sockpuppet_investigations/Mbhiii. Dicklyon (talk) 01:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. ''Your repeated use of socks to added unsourced interpretive material to the article is disruptive, and will be treated as vandalism, as I explained before. '' Dicklyon (talk) 04:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Since you and your sock continue to ignore reason and add unsourced and poorly sourced material to Reciprocity (photography), I will report you for vandalism now as I said I would. Dicklyon (talk) 21:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Reciprocity issues
It's been 2 months now, with you adding a succession of bad models sourced to vague memories and forums. Besides the obvious issue of not conforming to WP:V and WP:RS, the info is also worth than useless. For more details on the issues, see Talk:Reciprocity (photography). Please do respond there, or here, or my talk page, if you have any questions. But leave the crap out of the article, please. And stop pretending that the various IP addresses that you use are different editors. Dicklyon (talk) 06:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Again I revert your addition of unsourced interpretive information. Without a source, your stuff is just not going to be accepted into the article, no matter how many times you put it. Dicklyon (talk) 20:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Reciprocity sources
M, if you'd like to help move forward with sourced info on reciprocity models, there's a veritable treasure trove of sources that I finally came up with, here:, , , , , etc. Dicklyon (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:POINT
I won't play any games with your WP:POINT edits. Any further "retaliatory" edits will result in an immediate block.OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have reviewed Ohnoitsjamie's recent actions, and your recent actions. I agree with Ohnoitsjamie - you are editing disruptively and to try and stalk or annoy Jamie.
 * Further edits in this fashion will result in blocks. Please stop acting confrontationally and abusively.  This is not what Wikipedia is for.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, you are responsible for notifying persons (editors, administrators) when you file WP:ANI complaints about them, and you failed to do so for Ohnoitsjamie - please do everyone the courtesy of notifications next time you make a filing. Another admin did so for this report already, but please don't do that again.  Thank you.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikihounding

 * (Cc'ed from ANI)
 * The content issues here are becoming somewhat of a red herring. The key issue is that User:Mbhiii, after other conflicts, clearly followed User:Ohnoitsjamie around to articles Jamie was doing cleanup work on, and reverted changes Jamie made.
 * This is a clear and obvious violation of WP:WIKIHOUNDING - following an editor you disagree with around and bothering them on pages you have not previously participated in. Mbhiii clearly went to five articles he had never participated in ( Monsanto, Mr. Lif, Pornographic film, Connecticut, and Rottweiler ) over the course of 30 min on April 28th, directly and immediately following Jamie's edits, and reverted each of them.
 * The exception to Wikihounding is if an editors' contributions are damaging the encyclopedia by vandalism or the like - In this case, that clearly is not true. These are ordinary content disputes.  Happening to bump heads with other editors over content disputes is one thing.  Following the same editor to five different articles, over 30 min, which you have never edited before, is Wikihounding, and not ok.
 * Mbhii - Your dispute over the propriety of the individual edits is not relevant. The issue is that you followed Ohnoitsjamie, to five articles.
 * That sort of behavior is rude, against Wikipedia etiquette, and disruptive. If this is done again it will lead to a block.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Bilateral relations
Regarding the "keep" vote you've been spreading across bilateral relations debates (the "Johnny Appleseed" one): not only is it annoying and irrelevant (it does nothing to actually assess the notability of the articles at hand), but you may be curious to know what happened to the user who "went around, like Johnny Appleseed creating as many as possible, as stubs". Do try to address each article on its merits, all right? - Biruitorul Talk 01:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

invitation
I noticed your work on some of the x-y relation articles, you maybe interested in this new wikiproject.

You may also be interested in Article Rescue Squadron. Ikip (talk) 04:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Greek Love
Hi Mbhiii! There is a message for you here: Talk: Greek love. Thanks. Esseinrebusinanetamenfatearenecessest (talk) 05:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've removed that trolling "message" which is from this user that !voted to delete the related article. If you need, you can view it in the edit history but it's nonconstructive and quite uncivil. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here @ 05:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, unfortunately someone else he trolled actually restored it so feel free to go there and comment. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here @ 14:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

September 2009
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Please do not undo other people's edits repeatedly, or you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the 3RR. Thank you.

This includes edits you made as IP.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ...of course. -MBHiii (talk) 18:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

3RR warnings
I posted the below to my talkpage; I am reposting it here for your benefit.

MBHiii, you need to understand something about 3RR - it does not necessarily mean the use of the "undo" button and covers a manual revision of the article, even if the revisions are marginally different. The problem is a broader one of edit-warring. I will grant that you are probably not the only one guilty of tendentious editing but you have been the only one to do it using multiple IP addresses, which is why people are accusing you of socking. I am going to stretch good-faith to the extreme here and accept your explanation that you are trying not to run afoul of 3RR, but it really is not that difficult. I am going to very strongly urge you to do two things. First, please log in and edit under your proper username, particularly when editing contentious articles like these. Secondly, I'm going to kindly ask you to severely limit your use of reverting, either with the "undo" feature or by manually undoing edits. If you make a change to an article that subsequently is reverted, please try discussing it on the talk page and reaching a consensus rather than wearing out the undo button. Please. Read and adhere to our dispute resolution processes. I do not want to impose formal restrictions on you but I am going to be keeping an eye on these articles and if I see you beginning to flirt with crossing the 3RR line, engaging in tendentious editing - especially under the guise of multiple IP addresses - I will be left with no choice but to seek a more formal solution to this problem. If I see other editors acting in a tendentious manner I will engage them as well, but for your own sake, you need to stop trying to abide by 3RR and just start doing it. Shereth 20:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppets
Please stop abusing multiple accounts to edit. The Squicks (talk) 23:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not abuse to use IPs, but a convenience, so long as not breaking any rules. 3RR has been a problem for me in the past which I'm increasing my efforts on. -MBHiii (talk) 21:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It is abusive, as it masks the edit warring, and you have been cautioned to stop above, by an admin.
 * As the admin above says, it isn't wp:3RR that is the problem, it is your wp:edit warring. You really should step back before reverting, either by hand or with the undo button, or I fear you will be unable to edit.  If you simply stop edit warring, you won't have to worry about 3RR.  Wikipedia is patient, there are only a few reasons why an article would need a contentious edit applied right away (wp:BLP for example).- sinneed (talk) 14:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit war warning
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. Ray Talk 23:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

On my talk page, you wrote: I'm trying to be more careful about this, having recently learned 3RR applies to a consensus as well as another editor. -MBHiii (talk) 16:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC) It would be really good advice for you to stop worrying about wp:3RR and simply focus on wp:edit warring. If you don't edit war, you won't ever break wp:3RR. You might consider giving yourself a 1 Revert Rule. :) If it is something you feel strongly about, perhaps just revert it once, try to convince those who disagree, and move on.- sinneed (talk) 17:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring is bad. - This is 3 warnings, and all are level 4 warnings.

 * wp:edit warring accross multiple articles, against multiple editors, immediately after being warned to stop by an admin and other editors, is really not good.
 * Please see wp:edit summary - placing misleading edit summaries masking edit warring is also less than ideal.
 * A flag does not mean "Use the flag as an excuse to make a PoV edit with a misleading edit summary." It means "Please discuss, help reach consensus, an editor sees this as problematic and does not wish to proceed with the editor's own idea, instead seeking wp:consensus".
 * You are attempting to add content to an article. While it is sourced, it seems wp:off-topic  (edit) sorry, that isn't the article and my knowledge is not sufficient... what does a yiddish crudity for penis have to do with a patriotic song?  Multiple editors have objected, and at least 1 has started a section just for your proposed edit, but you have not joined the discussion.

You have already been given a last warning. If you continue down this path, you will most certainly be unable to edit. I encourage a different path, heed the advice you have been given: discuss, reach consensus, and stop editing against it.- sinneed (talk) 04:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this you user:74.242.252.203, continuing to edit with various anon addresses despite asking that the article be partially protected?- sinneed (talk) 05:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Following another editor's edits
When you're in a dispute with an editor and have gone so far as to complain about them at a noticeboard, it's considered somewhat bad form to then follow them to an article they just created so you can fix a wording error and comment "Bad English and questionably notable" in the edit summary. Perhaps you should take a break from the topic that you are running into conflict with User:The Squicks over since it sounds like&mdash;given the logged out socking and edit warring described above in addition to the ill-advised ANI report and following The Squicks' edits&mdash;you need to step back a bit. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I see that you are still continuing to stalk me and engage in blatant baiting. This kind of behavior, along with your resumption of sockpuppets to get around Wikipedia policy, is not acceptable. The Squicks (talk) 06:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to revert you because I'm better than that. Other editors will take care of it. The Squicks (talk) 06:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. Not only is it bad form but it is borderline disruptive. I have suggested before, and shall again suggest, that you consider disengaging from your dispute(s) with User:The Squicks. Following him to articles which you have never edited and modifying/reverting his edits - regardless of how well intentioned your actions are - is certainly not acceptable. Shereth 15:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring and IPs
You have a user account so there is no reason for you to be making controversial edits without logging in. Making edits while logged out does not exempt you from the prohibition on edit warring. Considering your previous disputes, I advise that you avoid editing the same topics as Squick. It looks like you've had previous warnings already so further disruption or edit warring, even short of 3RR, may lead to a block.  Will Beback   talk    04:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Incivility in edit summaries
You will stop reverting edits and labeling them as "vandalism" when they are clearly not vandalism, as you did here and here. Edits that you disagree with are not vandalism. Furthermore, you will refrain from referring to other users as "troll" as you have done here and here. These are personal attacks and will not be tolerated; if you are having issues with a specific user, please handle it via the normal dispute resolution process. If you believe an editor is engaged in vandalism or other malicious behavior, seek resolution through the proper channels. Future breaches of the civility policy will not be tolerated and will result in a block. Consider this your only warning as you should be familiar with these issues by now. Shereth</b> 22:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You might want to review this evidence to the contary. -MBHiii (talk) 15:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You can add to that list. Per Wikipedia policy, good faith edits are never vandalism. In addition, WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and Wikipedia discourages WP:COATRACK articles. Thus I have reverted your revert to comply with these. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 23:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Your edits at War on Drugs have been reported at the 3RR noticeboard
Per WP:AN3 you have reverted four times on October 28 at War on Drugs, which breaks the WP:3RR rule. You may still be able to avoid a block if you will respond at the noticeboard and promise to stop warring on this article. EdJohnston (talk) 02:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked
You clearly had caused disruption during a dispute with another editor. Hopefully a 24 hour break will give you time to read up on policy guidance and to realise the futility of edit warring. 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. 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. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 09:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

First revert
Since a question has been raised if there were truly four reverts, I ask reviewers to check the revert that has been questioned above. This is Mbhiii's 22:26 edit of 28 October 2009. This revert adds a section to the article called Nixon administration conspiracy, and it is the first of the four edits that were listed as reverts in the 3RR complaint:
 * 1) 22:26, 28 October 2009  (edit summary: "/* United States domestic policy */  Add back conspiracy allegation involving Liddy, as per the discussion on the Talks page.")

Now compare this paragraph to the one added by Mbhiii eight days earlier in his edit of 16:22, 20 October 2009: Nixon administration conspiracy. Restoring a paragraph to the article that has been removed by others is clearly a revert, even if you personally believe that consensus favors its inclusion. EdJohnston (talk) 16:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You will notice that on the 3RR report at AN3 about you that I had said that I had difficulty counting the 1st revert as one for the purposes of 3RR, but regardless of whether it is or is not (EdJohnston makes good points) you were in fact edit warring, which doesn't need a specific number of edits to be considered disruptive and warranting a block. Hopefully you realise why edit warring is futile and that this doesn't happen again. Regards, <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 18:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I see his pt. I feel, generally, I must use all arguments open to me on topics easily driven by ideologies. WP's rules are extensive and, feeling as I do, seem to expand as I get further into it. Such, it seems, is democracy. MBHiii (talk) 04:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * wp:NOT a democracy. Please give a read to wp:5 pillars.  And please, consider carefully whether you should revert, or if you should instead, try something new... different wording... offering what you feel may be a compromise.-  Sinneed  22:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Reverting. Again. Again.
Stop now. Please do not revert the damaged edit at Terrorism again. It appears likely that you copied from the article page, instead of the edit page. The "sources" you are providing go to WP. WP is not a source for WP. Please fix the links, pointing to wp:RS that support the content, if you wish to add it.

You have been blocked, you have been warned. Stop now.- Sinneed  21:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Related to the above, are you allergic to engaging in discussion when you get in to a disagreement with someone Mbhiii? Frankly I am tiring of seeing "Reverted to revision XXXX by Mbhiii" in your edit summaries. You seem to have entirely missed the point when you were put under a 1RR restriction concerning The Squicks - your overzealous use of the revet feature is not indicative of any attempts to follow proper dispute resolution procedures. Spamming the revert button when someone disagrees with you is not a very collegial way to edit, and the fact that multiple people are reverting you should be indicative of something. I want to see you make an earnest and honest effort to engage in cooperative editing and dispute resolution - fundamental aspects of Wikipedia - and not rely on snarky revert messages as your only means of attempting to resolve issues. If I see this pattern of behavior continue from you, I will be forced to ask the community to consider a general 0RR restriction against you, or perhaps a topic ban from healthcare (or perhaps politics) articles overall as a remedy to this unconstructive and uncompromising pattern of edits. I very strongly urge you to review our dispute resolution processes in detail and that you avail yourself of them before this situation escalates further. <b style="color:#0000FF;">Sher</b><b style="color:#6060BF;">eth</b> 22:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * My edits were in good faith. Sinneed's first explanation seemed wrong (as has seemed the case before with this editor). I reverted him with an explanation, which he understood and countered sensibly, which I accepted. The ball's now in my court to find a ref that isn't a broken link, so as not to leave (as he pointed out in his 2nd edit) a circular trail of links as the only source. -MBHiii (talk) 19:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not referring merely to the above article. A disproportionate number of your edits are simply mashing the "undo" button with a curt comment rather than any real attempt at resolving the dispute that is at hand.  What is even more depressing is that a large proportion of those edits are not merely reverts of a change another editor had made, but a revert of their revert of your original edit.  No one is claiming your edit above was made in poor faith, but you need to extend the same assumption of good faith toward the edits of other users; if other editors are consistently undoing your edits, there is a concern to be addressed and hitting the "undo" button is doing nothing to address this concern.  It is the volume of your edits reverting back to your own version that is disconcerting and needs to stop, so I will reiterate my request : when people are reverting your edits you need to make a good-faith edit to resolve the dispute via the suggestions at WP:DR, and not merely try to win the dispute by stubbornly hitting the undo button until you wear out the opposition.  If I don't see any improvement with this then I will, as stated above, make the case to the community to restrict your access to the undo feature altogether. <b style="color:#0000FF;">Sher</b><b style="color:#6060BF;">eth</b> 16:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * W.r.t. "dispute resolution is not 'winning an argument'", granted, as it may also be agreeing, as I frequently do with Hauskalainen, conceding, which I did recently with Jmcnamera, or bailing a la Squicks. -MBHiii (talk) 19:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You are still overlooking the ultimate goal of dispute resolution, which is coming to a mutual agreement via discussion, shared input and compromise. This sort of outcome is never possible when one (or both) parties simply revert one another until one side gives in, and really is not the sort of collaborative editing that we are trying to encourage here. <b style="color:#0000FF;">Sher</b><b style="color:#6060BF;">eth</b> 20:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

New Squix

 * Jmcnamera is not a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet of me.
 * I think Jmcnamara was just cleaning up uncited material. That's why I stepped up with the citing, though being extremely new to this whole deal I'm not so good at it yet.  Also, thanks for the fixes to the chronology.  I wonder whether it needs so much direct quoting though, given the denser nature of the rest of the section?Elvestinkle (talk) 23:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I would like to heartily ask, at the bottom of my heart, for you Hauskalainen and you MBHiii to go fuck yourselves. I've left Wikipedia with no intention of returning ever and there's no point for you to keep dumping on me over and over again. The Squicks (talk) 20:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Tsk, such language, totally unnecessary; I encourage you to read, learn, and grow up a bit more, for I'm convinced you have things to contribute, with a broader, more experienced and questioning perspective. -MBHiii (talk) 21:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If you've "left with no intention of returning" why is anyone's opinion of you an issue? Also, "retired" people don't usually keep showing back up at work.75.105.210.100 (talk) 07:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:JobsLost.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:JobsLost.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. I support having the data represented in the chart in the article, but it looks like the chart is copyrighted. Let me know if I missed something.--Bkwillwm (talk) 07:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

SPI
I have opened up a sockpuppet investigation that involves you. Sockpuppet investigations/JustGettingItRight Cptnono (talk) 03:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

And now ANI for your violation of 3rr and sockpuppetry. Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsCptnono (talk) 04:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * See also Sockpuppet investigations/Mbhiii/Archive. Drmies (talk) 01:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Courtesy note
You are receiving this note because of your participation in Articles for deletion/Iceland–Mexico relations, which is now being revisited at Articles for deletion/Iceland–Mexico relations (2nd nomination). – xeno talk  17:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

May 2010
You have been temporarily blocked from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. EyeSerene talk 17:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Further information: please see Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Thanks, EyeSerene talk 17:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

ANI
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Cptnono (talk) 23:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocked extended for repeated block evasion
You have been indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your . Vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view policy will not be tolerated. OhNo itsJamie Talk 01:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Drmies (talk) 04:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)