User talk:Ernham

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Ernham, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Esprit15d 18:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


Contents

Why I'm not the most friendly editor

You get what you give. After being repeatedly abused by biased adminstrators, I have little compunction to act any other way. Just to give an example of the wanton abuse, I will step by step demonstrate a recent event regarding Mark83. Sadly for wikipedia, this has been more the rule than the exception.

I had originally added new material to the Michael Schumacher wiki:

"Schumacher is credited with popularising Formula One in Germany, where it had little following and was generally considered a fringe sport. Today, not only is the sport itself much more popular in Germany, but three of the current top ten drivers in the drivers' championship are German: more than any other nationality."

a cite was included to an article that completely substantiated the the increase in general popularity in Germany. Then Mark83 changed it to this:

"Schumacher is credited with popularizing Formula One in Germany, where it had little following and was generally considered a fringe sport."

So he reverts most of what I wrote, which is one thing, but the main problem I had was that he didn't bother to read the cite he removed. The cite he removed substantiated at least partially the paragraph; the other part of the paragraph did not really require a cite as it's so easily verifiable. In short, he vandalized the wiki. As per the definition of wiki-vandalism:

. . .defined as changing a wiki in a way that is intentionally disruptive or destructive. There are four generally acknowledged types of vandalism: deletion of legitimate information . . .

It then becomes a bit of a revert war. I stopped at three, knowing at least one of my edits was a legitmate rectification of what was clearly vandalous behavior. Mark83, however, goes over the limit. Reverting a total of four times.

The admin dealing with the situation says this in the admin board dealing with the supposed 3RRV: "Definitely 3RR from E[rnham]; I don't see any vandalism. M[ark83] has 4 identical edits but its not clear the first is a rv. 24h for E[rnham]."

Note that I "definitely" violated the 3RR. Fixing 1-2 overt vanadlism attempts and reverting 2-3 times somehow constituted 4 reverts -- definitely. Uh, huh. He doesn't see any vandalism? Hmmm? Has he ever bothered to read the edit exchange, the wiki definition of vanadlism, or both? He sees "4 identical edits" which is another way of saying Mark83 violated 3RR, but he takes no action. Apparently he has never read the rules on what a reversion actually is. As I've stated before, it's a simple logical deduction that if the rule stipulates "the reversions in a 3RRV do not have to be of the same material" that a partial reversion is still a reversion nonetheless. I dare say there is a tremendous bias in dealing with me or there is an equally tremendous vacuum of knowledge of the rules that this admin has exhibited. And this is not the first time. Such scenarios have become the rule here for me, as opposed to the exception. Now you now why my tact is often in abeyance. It simply doesn't matter what I do here. It's a kangaroo court through and through, on almost every level I've seenErnham 23:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

revert 1/vandalism attempt1 by Mark83 revert 2/vandalism attempt 2. He gets funny here and demands the very cite he deletes revert 3 revert 4

Why I'm not the most friendly editor, part two

Not more than a few weeks ago, I had an incident with Ramdrake. I made a caveat-like paragraph regarding the arguments raised by Stephen J. Gould in Mismeasure of Man. Basically, modern science, by useage of the MRI, has completely debunked all of the arguments Gould had proposed in relation to the correlations between brain size and race, IQ and brain size, and thus IQ and race, along with citing several studies that throughly demonstrated it. Ramdrake deleted most of it, and rewrote a section of it. An edit war ensued. Ramdrake violates the 3RR. Then he has the temerity to revert my comments in the discussion section! FIVE times no less! Twice he clearly broke the 3RR (as a side note there should be some rules against editing other users' comments in the talk pages). The talk page was basically angry screeds written by Ramdrake, who seemed to have no interest in debating the contentious material actually involved in the edit war. No. Instead, he wanted to totally debate about all the various aspects in general regarding IQ-- race--brain size. He wanted to argue, basically, just argue. At one point he brags that he has PhD in a biological science(in neuroscience no less), right after saying that filling lead shot in a cranium will give you nearly as accurate a measurement of brain size as an MRI! A biologist with a PhD in Neuroscience claims this, despite the fact that the amount of cerebral-spinal fluid varies to a much greater degree than brain size does! A Neuroscientist would know that;in fact, he would die laughing to death after reading that comment. After that ridiculous comment, Ramdrake proceeds to provide a dozen or so cites. The cites are all related to those aforementioned general issues, but they are not at all related to the contentious matters in the edit war. Let me charcterize the actual studies: 100% were irrelevant, 50%-75% of them were actually op-ed pieces of zero worth even if they weren't already irrelevant. I stated that the cites were garbage and were written like op-ed pieces. I then sarcastically inferred how odd it was that someone with a degree in biological science would resolve to posting a bunch of op-ed pieces from social scientists when the matters being debated in the edit war were entirely in the domain of biological science. Again, he claims he has a PhD in Neuroscience. The comment I made was something like "yeah, right. You have a degree in BS and you continue to cite garbage op-ed pieces by social scientists? Uh huh." He claims it was a personal attack, and upon reading the first part, I thought it was related to my the phrase "degree in BS" comment, so I immediately corrected any possible misinterpretation and clearly stated what I meant in my sarcastic remark. He says that wasn't what he took offense to. No. He took offense to the fact that I called his irrelevant, op-ed, social scientist cites as "garbage". I report him for violating the 3RR, which he did twice. The result? I'm the one that gets my editing privileges suspended, on the grounds of supposed "incivility". The double violator of the 3RR goes scot free. This is the exact same admin that dealt with the above case in "Why I'm not the most friendly editor(part one above)".Ernham 00:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Diffs from the wiki violation of 3RR by Ramdrake: This is what I originally added, with cites elucidating the position semi-concurrently in talk Revert 1 :Ramdrake rewrites a portion and reverts the majority. revert 2 revert 3 revert 4


Diffs from the talk page violation of 3RR by Ramdrake(noting the summaries is important here, as this involves the supposed personal attack.Read above text regarding this matter to understand why it was made. Lead shot, indeed): ramdrake's first reversion of my comment in the talk page revert 2 revert 3 revert 4

When I originally edited your addition to the article, that was because even though several scientists advance a relationship from race to brain size and brain size to IQ (nobody contests the claims have been made), several more have conducted studies that contradict those findings. Thus, they are a matter of dispute, and not incontrovertible fact as you seemed to present them. Second, as to my quoting psychologists and anthropologists to question the relationship, it's simply that the subject is usually called "race and intelligence". Field experts on race are usually anthropologists and geneticists, and experts on intelligence are usually psychologists and psychometricians, so their opinion is more than germane to the subject. Lastly, there is already an article in Wikipedia on Race and Intelligence and as far as I can tell, that was where the comments I removed from your addition belonged, as I think I made clear in my edit summary and I even tried to explain on the talk page. That you deciced to ignore the 12 sources I presented to you and chose to stick to the single viewpoint of the one article you quoted to me is your choice. I made an honest effort to try to explain the reasons for my viewpoint, ad instead of discussing calmly, you escalated this into a revert war, complete with uncivil remarks (where I come from, "BS" does not mean biological science, and yes we speak English). I would suggest that next time you disagree with someone, assume you're both working in good faith, sit down with them and discuss why your opinions differ. That is the basis of compromise-making.--Ramdrake 22:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I really doubt any kind of compromise with a person that claims filling a cranium(.7-.8 correlation) with lead shot will give you near as accurate measurement of brain size as an MRI(>.99999999999 correlation) out of one side of his mouth and then claim to be a neuroscientist out of the other side. I live on a lush planet called Earth. Come visit some day. Ernham 09:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Why I'm not the most friendly editor, part three

When I first started poking around wikipedia with the intention of possibly registrring and becoming an editor, one of the first things that struck me was the Formula One pages. I had read the Michael Schumacher page, and while I thought it was fairly well done, after reading a handful of other notable Formula One drivers I noticed several interesting differences. All of them are not particularly germane for this, nor would detailing all of them be fruitful. I will, however, focus on one notable issue.

I counted over half a dozen different wikis of notable Formula one drivers that had some version of being called "the greatest driver" incorporated in their intro paragraphs. I thought it rather odd that Schumacher did not have a similar comment in his section. Why?

1.He's the only driver the official formula one website lists as being "the greatest" in any capacity.

2. In the biggest poll ever done on Formula one drivers, Schuamcher won by a landslide.

3. He owns almost every record in formula one.

4. BBC mathmematically proved he was the greatest using the standard measures of gauging greatness in formula one.

5. Similarly, an entire book was written mathematically proving, as much as one can with statistics, that no one else has a greater claim to being the "greatest" ever grand prix driver than Schumscher does.

Now, if any formula one driver has any claim whatsoever to the title of "greatest", then, it would be Schumacher. So this was the curiosity. Why was it that drivers, even drivers that had not won a single world drivers' championship their entire career(schumacher has won 7) were being labeled the greatest, yet Schumacher was not in any capacity given the same title?

As a test, I copy and pasted various versions of "the greatest" used in other formula one drivers wikis and put them in the schuamcher wiki. It was like dropping a hefty garbage bag full of blood into a swimming pool of starving sharks. I was repeatedly attacked, accused of this that and the other thing, repeatedly reverted and etc. So, I figured, using the same logic that over a half a dozen editors had used on me, I would go to all of the wikis where the exact same wording was being used to "talk up" other formula one drivers and remove it. It was like dropping TWO hefty garbage bags full of blood into a swimming pool of starving sharks! again I'm routinely attack and reverted. Here's the kicker: the very same editors that were reverting me for including "the greatest" in the schumacher wiki were the very same ones that were later reverting me for changing/removing the EXACT same claims made on other Formula one drivers' wikis! Complete hypocritical madness! I will recount the edits and history of just one of those users, without meaning to single him out specifically, but just to present what was stereotypical case of what half a dozen or so Formula One editors were doing at the time.

I might do a couple, actually, when I have a bit more time. Stopping here for now. As a side note, many of the users involved in the blatant hypocrisy can found above, in the fulminating orgy of my first several sections of this talk page.Ernham 15:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Go on then - post some diffs to prove that I am a bigot and a liar? I'll be interested to see those. -- Ian Dalziel 20:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
wow, a request? So be it.Ernham 02:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

My removal of one of the "greatest" comments on another formula one dirver's page

Ian Dalziel reverts it

but here he was, just hours earlier, reverting the Schumacher "greatest" entry I added

This was about as stereotypical as an example as there is, perhaps only missing even more spurious logic for their overt hypocrisy. About a half a dozen editors did exactly the same things detailed above, from discussion pages to edits/edit summaries to my own talk page. These are persons whom I must deal with on a daily basis when editing the Formula One pages. It seems that for many of them, jingoistic bigotry often supercedes what logical faculties they might have.Ernham 02:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

My objection was to the expression "widely regarded" - to me, that implies a consensus which does not exist. I admit that "rvv" was excessive - I realise now that your edit was in good faith, if misguided, and I apologise for the "v". I have made no objection to subsequent, more moderate statements. I have said in several places that I consider arguments about "the greatest" to be a waste of energy - I have reverted your edits in other places only where you seemed to me to be damaging established articles simply out of spite because you have met disagreement. Most of the comments which you have removed were much less assertive than your original edits.
You have, as far as I can see, produced no evidence to support your allegations of "bigotry" and "lies". To be "jingoistic" about Fangio I think I would have to be Argentinian. I am not - nor am I English, for what it's worth. For pity's sake, calm down and enter into discussion. If someone disagrees with you, the response should be to argue - not to scream and stamp your feet! -- Ian Dalziel 19:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
you are making a poor showing if this is some attempt to save face. i mean, the edits are right there, Ian. And just above on this page you can see I showed you http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/motorsport/formula_one/3168114.stm?display=1 . How's that for "widely regarded"? How different is "widely" from "many" which is the only real difference with the fangio you reverted back in? Additionally, if your issue was with the use of "widely", Your edit summary is very interesting that you attached to the your reverion of the "greatest" comment i placed on the schuamcher wiki. Remember what you said? Go look. Maybe you need another memory jogger, eh? You said a bit more than "RVV" How about, "(and also, he is widely regarded as not...[being the greatest]). In short, I just can't rationalize your blatant hypocrisy short of those other possibilities.
"he is widely regarded as not" is exactly the same point - that there is disagreement. Is there any chance of your discussing ANYTHING without resorting to personal attacks? -- Ian Dalziel 21:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
/yawn. The "personal attack" canard again, eh? I guess that was to be expected, given your position, or lack thereof.Ernham 05:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Explain to me, with or without yawning, how the subject under dicussion can be a canard? -- Ian Dalziel 16:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Why I'm not the most friendly editor, part four

Back to schumacher issues again. In this case, a notable(notable for being unable to write a sentence about schuamcher without using libel/slander) British editor continues to add back libelous material regarding a controversial race incident. This is at least the second incident he has done so. Last time he tried to bully his libelous claims through via some other stooge that was apparently key in getting the Damon Hill wiki the status of "featured article". As a matter of fact, for almsot 3 days I fought to get to the libelous crap off the Damon Hill page. For a page that is currently considered a featured article, it was an astonishing thing for an article that had no less than half a dozen libelous claims regarding Michael Schuamcher. He half heartedly try to support a fraction of them with a single, ridiculous op-ed piece barfed out by the always-accurate British press, and only presented this opinion piece after I started getting rid of the libelous statements. The amount of libel was just ridiculous. Essentially this entire chunk of edit history was me trying to remove libelous statements regarding Michael Schuamcher. Seb Patrick was the stooge i was referring to. Note their gratuitous happy gland-handing each other in their talks.

(cur) (last) 08:15, 6 October 2006 Skully Collins (Talk | contribs)

(cur) (last) 11:10, 5 October 2006 Ernham (Talk | contribs) (This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately,)

(cur) (last) 11:03, 5 October 2006 Seb Patrick (Talk | contribs) (Reverted removal of referenced statement. Please discuss on talk page before engaging in edit-warring reverts and accusations of slander.)

(cur) (last) 09:28, 5 October 2006 Ernham (Talk | contribs) (RV slander. op-ed piece is not a valid source.)

(cur) (last) 06:28, 5 October 2006 Skully Collins (Talk | contribs) m (Revert - It doesn't matter if it's "slander", it's still referenced, unlike your statement. As I said before, I want solid evidence that the FIA did this report!)

(cur) (last) 02:11, 5 October 2006 Ernham (Talk | contribs) (rv slander)

(cur) (last) 06:36, 4 October 2006 Skully Collins (Talk | contribs) (Reverted Back to Damage. See Talk Page Before You Even Bother Reverting)

(cur) (last) 19:43, 2 October 2006 Ernham (Talk | contribs) (→1993–1996: Williams - Taking a corner wide means you went to the outside on a corner and ended up off the track. it's very common race terminology. Why you do not know it is puzzling)

(cur) (last) 19:03, 2 October 2006 Ian Dalziel (Talk | contribs) (The track is the black bit. He ran over a green bit.)

(cur) (last) 18:15, 2 October 2006 Ernham (Talk | contribs) (http://www.sportinglife.com/fanzine/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=formula1/06/09/28/AUTO_Column.html ruling on the icnident, FIA said there was no prove his car was damaged not he drove intentionally into)

(cur) (last) 18:08, 2 October 2006 Mark83 (Talk | contribs) (Restore damage report. Note: This is correctly referenced. If someone disputes it please state there was no damage AND PROVIDE A SUITABLE REF)

(cur) (last) 17:50, 2 October 2006 Ernham (Talk | contribs) (→1993–1996: Williams)

(cur) (last) 17:48, 2 October 2006 Ernham (Talk | contribs) (→1993–1996: Williams - I don't care what the slanderous english op-ed pieces. According to the official F-1 report it was unknown if any damage occured to his vehicle.)

(cur) (last) 08:30, 2 October 2006 Skully Collins (Talk | contribs) (Revert - Plus added cite from BBC for the damaged car bit.)

(cur) (last) 07:57, 2 October 2006 Ernham (Talk | contribs) (That's definitely not what i recall. Sure, he was catching him after he went off the road, but not before. gonna need a valid cite, given this involves reputations of two live persons.)

(cur) (last) 07:13, 2 October 2006 Skully Collins (Talk | contribs) (Revert but removed seriously...Come On - Everyone knows that if you hit the barrier as fast as Schumacher did it's gotta cause SOME damage. Plus, Hill WAS catching Schumacher.)

(cur) (last) 06:37, 2 October 2006 Ernham (Talk | contribs) (lies and speculation. Deja vues)

(cur) (last) 06:32, 2 October 2006 Skully Collins (Talk | contribs) (Revert - See the unusual Toe angle of Schumacher's rear tire. Also the star in the corner says it all)

(cur) (last) 02:34, 2 October 2006 Ernham (Talk | contribs) (→1993–1996: Williams - lies and speculation, not a good combination.)

That was the old incident(s), which was at the Damon Hill wiki. Now for the new incident, which was at the 2006 Formula One season wiki: Skully Collins again tries to insert and reinsert clearly libelous comments. I continue to revert him stating that the policy is such material must be immediately removed. I even go as far as to going into the talk page and saying what you can or cannot say. He does not cease until his revert limit is up. Then he calls over what appears to be another stooge to fight his edit war of attempted libel.

The claim was that Schumacher specifically stated he made an error/mistake regarding a --highly-- controversial racing incident in Monaco.

The supposed cite his this to say:

Q: A tense and breathtaking qualifying session, and you are on pole, but what happened to you in that incident at Rascasse?

Michael Schumacher: I locked up the front and went wide. I wasn’t sure what was going on after this because of the positioning of the cars and so on, so I was not aware and in the end, I checked with the guys what the situation was, where did we end up, because I didn’t expect to be sitting here right now in this position and they said P1, so I was glad considering what had happened.

Unfortunatley for Skully and his libelous ilk, there are nigh infinite amounts of events that could have unfolded to have caused him to lock up his brakes and go wide on that hair pin corner in monaco while never making an error/mistake. As a matter of fact, in the VERY NEXT question on that cite page he states he was having technical problems with his transmission. Are they linked? I sure the hell don't know; skully sure the hell don't know. Completely POV and completely conjectural interpreation of what he said. Here are a couple samples of the revert exchanges(they were all essentially the same, only the summaries varying a bit):

stereotypical revert exchange 1

stereotypical revert exchange 2


Keep in mind the following( Note: I only put this section here in "part four" because every person seems to keep suggesting I do certain things when in fact 95% of the time I TRIED TO DO THOSE EXACT THINGS. It doesn't matter because they know they can get any with anything they want because good ol' William M. Connolley is "on(?) duty"):

  • I told them what they could include for it not to be libel/slander indiscussion page.
  • I made it very clear what they were trying to force through was libelous/slanderous material of a very, very controversial incident.(people get fined millions of dollars for things like this and entire reputations ruined in Formula One)
  • The main user in question Skully Collins has a history of libelous statements of this very same living person (michael schumacher).
  • I explicitly followed wikipedia's rules, of which I will now present a large chunk of what it actually says about wiki-libel regarding such materials:

Editors should remove any controversial material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. In cases where the information is derogatory and poorly sourced or unsourced, this kind of edit is an exception to the three-revert rule. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel.

Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and controversial in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion (see WP:CSD criterion A6).

Jimmy Wales has said:

   I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.

He considers "no" information to be better than "speculative" information and reemphasizes the need for sensitivity:

   Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia.

I ended up banned for 48 hours because I would not allow the libelous statement to be posted. When the wiki was edited without the slander/libel, however, I did not touch the wiki further. William M. Connolley is again, of course, the very admin that did this, claiming I'm using the wiki rules to enforce my POV. Hey,pal, I'm ENFORCING Jim Wales POV. You know who he is, eh? You might consider TRYING it some time. I'm sure he will be happy to know you are banning me for removing blatant libel against one of the richest people on the planet that could crush this site with litigation with just his weekend chump change. And even if that was the case "I'm using the rules to support my POV", which it is not, perhaps I should be like you and and enforce my point of view by NOT following wiki rules? Admin Luna Santin also refused my request to be unblocked. I have since requested another unblocking. Mango has also refused to lift the block, alleging that the cite in fact states that schuamcher did in fact say "he made an error".(dear mango, don't ever get a job as a lawyer.)Ernham 08:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Please don't violate the 3rr

You just violated the WP:3RR on Eisenhower and German POWs‎. WP:3RR requires that you revert the page to the other version or face a short-term ban. Please do so; again, I think a POV tag is obviously indicated for the article, as there is an outstanding POV dispute.

Thanks -- --Rocketfairy 21:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Funny you should mention that, as you have violated it as well. I just didn't opted for the "neener-neener" route like you, as you were the first to violate it.Ernham 21:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Funny that, Ernham involved in an edit war a day after he's unbanned :) It's just what he's doing by reverting the Lothar von Trotha and Herero and Namaqua genocide articles yet again. If anyone else who's keeping an eye on Ernham's behaviour wants to help in those articles, please do. Greenman 12:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back

Welcome back Ernham. Are you going to behave civilly or just revert to your old ways? Can you not attempt to contribute something constructive, or are you actually out to get banned again? Your first action back is to revert again in the Lothar von Trotha and Herero and Namaqua genocide articles. Riding roughshod over the truth and community consensus. No discussion. All the improvements since your blessed ban removed at the click of a mouse! Ernham is back, unrepentant! Watch out world, Wikipedia is as he says it is. People don't agree with you! Get over it! Maybe your beloved countrymen made mistakes in the past - it's not an attack on you! The facts will not disappear because you revert them out of the way. Stop trying to revert the world into your puce-coloured version of truth. Somehow the fact that we've gone over this so many times, and you've been repeatedly banned, suggests I'm wasting my breath. I see another edit war looming. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for a day or two. Greenman 12:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Sadly you're doing just what you did before you were banned. I'm not going to correct the article you've 'contributed' to, as another edit war is not my idea of time well spent, but I will be trying to get you blocked again so we can start to make progress on the articles without your constant disruption. All the best :) Greenman 12:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

A concern

Hello again. I saw your edit [1] to Georg-August University of Göttingen. I agree with the thrust of your edit, e.g. " Today, Göttingen is one of the most comprehensive universities in Germany, with a respectable, but no longer world-famous, mathematics department." is editorializing in my opinion. However I'm a bit concerned about your removal of the word Nazi. I do not know anything about the incident myself, however a government purge in Germany in 1933 is de facto a Nazi purge is it not? It just struck me as censorship and in line with similar recent edits of yours, which is concerning. Mark83 13:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Banned

Having exhausted the community's patience, you have been banned per this discussion at the community sanction noticeboard. A ban is a formal revocation of editing privileges. Your ban extends to the whole of Wikipedia and is presently of indefinite duration. --bainer (talk) 14:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Banned

Having exhausted the community's patience, you have been banned per this discussion at the community sanction noticeboard. A ban is a formal revocation of editing privileges. Your ban extends to the whole of Wikipedia and is presently of indefinite duration. --bainer (talk) 14:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


Banned by a cabal of bigoted Jews, Brits, and assorted liberal zealots whom fill wikipedia full of lies and bias? I'm crushed, verily.Ernham 02:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

"Verily" is a word that doesn't get used enough. --Rocketfairy 02:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Have a look at the list of people who have been banned. It's a very small group. Out of the thousands of people who edit Wikipedia that's quite an achievement. Have a think if it might be a problem you have, not everyone else. Mark83 04:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Get a life, bootlicker.Ernham 04:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)