User talk:BrekekekexKoaxKoax/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, BrekekekexKoaxKoax, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Boson (talk) 22:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

December 2010

BrekekekexKoaxKoax - i have undone edits of yours in both Pfizer and DynCorp. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV . Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 07:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Please be neutral, Brek. Do not controversialise our articles. Do not be on a soap box here. For that there are blogs. 24.19.43.104 (talk) 01:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Bradley Manning, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. -- specifically, the off-topic template. --S. Rich (talk) 19:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Reponse to response to message of 16 Dec 2010

Yes, that is the goal. However, one does not take an article that is devoid of criticism, add anti-corporate or anti-government statements, [please read my edits - they are neither anti-corporate nor anti-government. They are anti things like child prostitution, which happens to involve DynCorp, blackmail, which happens to involve Pfizer, the attempt to cover-up such activity, which happens to involve...]BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 20:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC) and end up with a neutral article. Realise that the child in Africa for whom we work does not benefit from articles filled with the sentiments of heavily partisan bloggers. 24.19.43.104 (talk) 03:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

3RR warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on European Union. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. No, it doesn't say what you think it does. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[Arthur, why are you reverting all of my edits, even those involving factual additions to articles on obscure baroque operas?]BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 20:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

EU audit opinion

Unfortunately, I am rather busy, so I may not be able to reply, but here are my suggestions (waiting till January might be a good idea). Wikipedia works by consensus, so don't just revert; [Agreed - would those reverting inclusion of the admittedly unfortunate audit opinion only do the same]BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 20:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC) take the issue to the talk page of the relevant article. One normally accepted process is described at WP:BRD. Basically, you can be bold and make a change, but if it is challenged, you should then go to the talk page. I would suggest you read that, and the guidelines/policies mentioned there. If you follow process, you should have less problems. It is easier if you demonstrate that your interest is in improving the article and presenting important information in a neutral way. For a number of reasons, including the size of the article, I don't think the European Union article is the right place to start; [don't understand what you mean by starting - I'm including the audit opinion on the implementation of the budget]BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 20:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC) so I would forget about that article for the time being. [It's As a top-level article, European Union is largely written in "summary style" [which is why I have summarized the audit opinion, and requested suggestions for better summaries if mine does not properly convey the significance of this opinion]BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 20:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC) , where most details are contained in sub-articles (linked to using {{Main}}. When the desired information has been incoporated into the sub-articles,[I have tried incorporating in sub-articles, but the audit opinion has been removed from those also]BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 20:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC) then one can consider whether the information is important enough to be summarized in the parent article. However newsworthy, I would not normally expect individual reports of the Bundesrechnungshof to be discussed in the article on Germany.[Do not quite understand - is the fact that the auditors annually highlight material errors in the implementation of the budget of the EU, only 'newsworthy?' As for your analogy, the EU is not a country, but I understand from European Union 'an economic and political union', where its budget and proper implementation is presumably of relevance. Were it a country, there be a section on budget, and the audit opinion on the governing body's proper implementation of said budget to habitually highlight material errors, in particular in relation to legality and regularity, this presumably would indeed warrant inclusion.]BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 20:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It is probably best to concentrate the discussion in one place, so I would suggest you start a new section (perhaps entitled something like "Comments on EU accounts by auditors" [does this not sound a little dismissive of the Audit Opinion of the Court of Auditors?]BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 20:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC) at Talk:Court of Auditors. Here you can indicate that you think the present text is one-sided and needs revision. Suggest what you think needs adding or changing. To get greater input, it might be a good idea to start a similar section at Talk:European Union that simply links to the discussion (e.g. "The Court of Auditor's comments on the EU accounts is being discussed at Talk:Court of Auditors#Comments on EU accounts by auditors").

I would regard the auditors' report as a primary source. Where it comprises assessments and comments (rather than simple facts like GDP or population), it is best backed up by secondary sources that analyse the reports. It should be possible to find reliable sources that discuss this issue. Anything that is inferred from the report rather than being actually stated is, in Wikipedia terminology, original research. If this is the normal inference that would be made by an accountant, you should be able to provide a secondary source that makes that inference..

There are further methods of dispute resolution, including arbitration, but I don't think we are at that point yet. --Boson (talk) 10:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Test edits

Please post talk threads at talk pages, not into the main frame articles. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 23:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks

We have a process called Bold Revert Discuss. You made a Bold edit. I Reverted it and mentioned my concerns. Now You must Discuss your proposed change on the talk page. Re-adding content is specifically discouraged before you discuss your proposal. In this case it is highly unlikely you are going to get those cats to stick; I'd encourage you to revert yourself and then enter into a discussion on the talk page. Please familiarise yourself with our guidelines before making possibly contentious edits. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC) [I apologize: I had no idea such categorization might be considered contentious. As I'm new, I haven't yet fully acquainted myself with all our guidelines - thank you for drawing this process to my attention. I shall indeed revert myself and enter into discussion on the talk page forthwith, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 15:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)]

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to WikiLeaks has been reverted, as it appears to introduce incorrect information. Please do not intentionally add incorrect information to articles [er, what I have added that is 'incorrect'?, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 15:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)]; use the sandbox for testing. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. [Thank you for the reference, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 15:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)] Thank you. Rmosler | ● 14:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand that such newbie biting from side of editors like Rmosler2100 (adding two warnings because of one issue is inappropriate) may be confusing, but he warned you exactly because of additions of those categories. You should discuss it now on talk page there. Although even if he sent you vandal warning, your edits were far from being vandalism so don't be confused because of that. Petrb (talk) 15:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk page s

BrekekekexKoaxKoax -- please see WP:TALKPAGE for hints on how to keep talk pages readable. Besides the indents, I recommend using italics to distinguish your inline comments rather than [brackets, which are not as visible]. Thanks.--S. Rich (talk) 18:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks S.Rich - still a lot to learn... BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Please indent by using a ":". or like I just did, with 2 ::s. --S. Rich (talk) 19:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiCookie for you

Here is a WikiCookie for you, BrekekekexKoaxKoax, for your contributions and hard work undertaken to learn. Not just on Bradley Manning, but on other articles. You are applying intelligence, WP:BOLD, WP:RS, and proper wikimarkup. Keep up the good work and don't let reverts get you down. --S. Rich (talk) 16:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)16:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Yum! BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 16:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Bradley Manning appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. While I hope you enjoy the WikiCookie, please come down from the Sugar high it may have produced. You've got to step back from your desire to support Manning and, instead, work as a Wikipedian. IOW, WP:NPOV! --S. Rich (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Bradley Manning. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. The piece about Christmas Day in particular. In fact, your edit was WP:VANDAL because it was not added to improve Wikipedia and there was no WP:GOODFAITH behind it. --S. Rich (talk) 14:02, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments heeded, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 20:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Have raised queries re your own increasingly questionable NPOVness on your own discussion page. While I indeed flagged my one-off Christmas Day edit as well-referenced, true but potentially POV, I don't think your charges apply elsewhere, though I am very grateful for your timely alerts where you think my desire to keep the article NPOV is leading to too much focus in one direction, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 03:00, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Palin political views

I wanted to drop you a note about this addition. I've reverted it because it violates WP:NPOV and WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. You really need to read and carefully understand their meaning and details. What is wrong with that text you added? Well, the source makes no mention of "accountability and transparency" - this is the OR/SYNTH aspect, it is not our remit to conflate such commentary into a niche like that. If a reliable source makes the link between these comments of hers and the ideas of accountability & transparency that is another matter - however in this case the source simply reports her comments and makes no significant appraisal of them. The non-neutral aspect comes from the wording and the "cherry picked" choice of phrasing. For example, why in particular is her view of how Assange should be "hunted" significant over any of the other quotes. Quotations should be chosen with care and avoided if possible in cases where their use is not obvious. In this case; a source that analyses her view in the context of these statements will be much better for creating content with. I took a look over some of your other recent additions and noted similar issues; my advice at this stage is this - given the amount of reversion you are facing (most of it right as far as I can see) it is probably worth slowing down, taking a good look at the policies and figuring out how to write content in the correct way. A lot of what you are trying to add might be germane and useful; but it has a number of original research and NPOV issues that are making it difficult to accept --Errant ^(chat!) 19:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Point hopefully heeded, Thank you. I had noted from WikiLeaks that WikiLeaks relates to notions of accountability and transparency so had made the connection... Is that wrong? BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 20:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Sarah Palin page probation notice

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Sarah Palin, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Sarah Palin/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- Horologium (talk) 19:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice - hopefully I can still engage in the debate? I see from the discussion ad loc. that User:Cube lurker regards the notions of accountability and transparency as POV. Since he appears to be empowered to revert edits relating to accountability and transparency, there may be some way to go. Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 20:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

You're being talked about in Administrative circles.

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. This is in regards to the Sarah Palin/Wikileaks change you are working on. Hasteur (talk) 21:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I struck the accusation -- it was unfounded. I apologize. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Bradley Manning

"Please can you explain how citation of articles on the CNN and Guardian websites, amongst others, constitutes original research. And please can you also explain how you interpret BLP to justify your removal of large sections from this article. Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 02:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)"

Sure,I would be happy to. The CNN article references people who are not involved in the case or in Mannings life and make no claims to be inolved in the case or in his life. (man on the street) They are not experts on Bradley manning or military intelligence and the inclusion was there, specifically, to support calling him a bero, which fails WP:BLP, WP:SOURCES and WP:NPOV. Indeed, calling him a "hero" is patently contentious as there are some (to be clear, I am not one of them) who think he ought to be shot for treason.

You asked me to "please can you also explain how you interpret BLP to justify your removal of large sections from this article." The article "bradley manning" is a biography. As such the standards for inclusion are more stringent. Please read WP:BP. It states "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. [...] The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material." Hope this clears things up, if you need to contact me hit the little talk button next to my signature instead of putting it on my front page, that way I will be alerted that I have a message rather then just stumbling on it. Best Luck. V7-sport (talk) 02:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about misdirection. Have responded, hopefully, in the right place - but don't think a video showing Ellsberg delivering Ellsberg's cited words, for instance, is either unsourced or poorly sourced, etc.

No problem, You are going to need to be more specific regarding the other reference you are referring to. I may not been the one to remove it. Regardless, have a look at the archived portion of the Manning talk page for a previous discussion on the inclusion of reactions by uninvolved 3rd parties in a BLP. You will see that I initially argued for their inclusion, however i was persuaded that I was incorrect in the final consensus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bradley_Manning#Reactions--U.S._Government_subsection_removal Ellesburg would be fine for inclusion if he knew manning or was a part of the infrmation release or even cited as an inspiration for it in terms of a biography. If the page was, say, "the arrest of Bradley manning" then he would be fair game. (of course that would also open up the page to speculation about his sexuality, motivations, punishment, possible other charges, etc. I think this was made into a biography in order to prevent it from degenerating into that. Putting it bluntly with no offense intended but to get some real clarity: It excludes the calls for him to be lynched because he is a gay traitor but it also eliminates the calls by Chomsky to canonize him because he screwed the USA.) Honestly, i think it is the right approach to follow the BLP guidelines. Indeed, in this case it is the parameters that we have to operate in. Hope this makes sense.V7-sport (talk) 03:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Please see response in Manning article, Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 04:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

{Posted from my talk page; Brek, you are entitled to delete from this page IAW WP:OWNTALK--S. Rich (talk) 16:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC)) Now it's my turn, SRich. On a number of occasions you have provided me with helpful feedback and information. Are you quite sure, however, that you yourself are always NPOV? I see your more than needed moderation tends to the advantage of your former employer. Is, for instance, the fact that one of the apparently numerous Manning rallies attracted 35 protesters of more note than that rallies were to be staged in 18 cities just in the US? With thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 01:52, 26 December 2010 (UTC) And indeed, I now see you have seemingly interpreted a clear call for opinions FOR and AGAINST as a call for one-sided opinions. BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 02:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

My remarks about the call for opinions was to get others to lay in, as they have, and then hopefully get this section of the BLP under control. E.g., when the POV stuff gets hot and heavy, it takes some time for cooler heads to prevail. Same thing with the 35 protesters -- I added the number and added the fact that more protests were planned. Hopefully other editors will find RS about those 18 protests when they actually happen and make comment. But please also see my comments on the Manning talkpage about the UNSR stuff. I point out how a request by a supporter to the office of the former UNSR Nowak turns into a headline (rather article title) that the United Nations itself is investigating. Getting wikipedia editors to stay NPOV sometimes requires reverts, sometimes reminders, sometimes discussion, and sometimes some edits which serve as a wakeup call regarding WP:DUE. That was what the 35 number was about -- a questioning of the weight of that particular protest. Thanks for your comments and your edits, Brek, they are worthwhile.--S. Rich (talk) 16:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Bradley Manning N°2

Hi, Would you have a look at the B. Manning discussion page ?Trente7cinq (talk) 09:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC) Have done, sorry for the delay, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 00:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

BrekekekexKoaxKoax ,thank you for the time you spent searching the appropriate link ( I began to get tired of being rebuffed : zealous neutrality of SV was becoming to appear as a bias to me !). As I wrote in the discussion page, I leave it up to you( and your native english) to write the comment /excerpts . If needed I would amend it . That point seemed of paramount weight to me , even if I can't follow Greenwald's interpretations ( all of them ): who knows , perhaps the unpublished parts could even make the charges greater ??? Fairness demanded to make that point clear . I am not sure I will go on editing on B. Manning's page after that point had been solved .Sincerly yours.Trente7cinq (talk) 08:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Categories for deletion

I have reverted your comment at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 January 7; please don't vote more than once in a single discussion. (Say "Keep/Delete" once and then summarize your opinion.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC) Oops, though they are separate reasons for a vote for keep, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 00:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Brek -- if you want to modify or expand in the talk pages, do so. If you are deleting something, use strikeout typeface. Once you make your modification, instead of adding a new signature with the - - ~ ~ ~ ~ shortcut, add 5 tittles (whatever they are called) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, and an additional date will appear after the original one. (The idea is that other editors can see if you are modifying a comment in response to another editor's comment.) --S. Rich (talk) 05:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC) Oh, this is to demonstrate how the modification dating works. 05:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC) Thanks S. Rich, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 11:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC) (or should that be 11:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC))

ANI stuff

see User talk:Wm5200 its quite enlightening. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC) Yes, agree, and thanks (though I did have a quick butchers there first), BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 00:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

January 2011

Your recent edit to the page Bradley Manning appears to have added incorrect information and has been reverted or removed. All information in this encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable, published source. If you believe the information that you added was correct, please cite the references or sources or before making the changes, discuss them on the article's talk page. Please use the sandbox for any tests that you wish to make. Do take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. (Specifically, the use of the term "appropriated" when The Guardian did not use the term and the "636,000" people "implicated" by the Twitter subpoena.) --S. Rich (talk) 23:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC) Re your specifics, please see article history page ad loc. Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Twitter Subpoena appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. Specifically, adding McCarthyism as a SA. Google hits do not justify such an addition. The subpoena was signed by a Federal Judge IAW constitutional procedures and adding McCarthyism is merely a slur on the process. Also, your article is unbalanced. See Wikipedia:Balance Your Perspectives for guidance. --S. Rich (talk) 00:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Please see McCarthyism: apparently current use of the term includes 'subverting civil rights in the name of national security'. Along with 636000+ others apparently my email and IP addresses are to be the subject of US control and investigation, for the apparent crime of clicking on a link to the Guardian website from within Twitter. Indeed I have unfortunately and unwittingly compromised the privacy of many of my friends and family by such behaviour while benefitting from their wifi networks. I would venture I pose little threat to the US from my far-off hovel, and regard this as an egregious subversion of the civil rights of my acquaintances who had no idea I happened to be following such a link. Now this would be OR - but I'm apparently far from feeling that this may indeed be 'McCarthyism'. I also understand you (1) removed information from this article stating in the edit summary note that it was not supported by the references provided, when I'm pretty sure it was (though please let me know if I'm incorrect in this); (2) did not remove the new/unreviewed article template although you did make more than one edit to the article to reduce its seemingly impeccably-sourced content - but again please correct me. Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 00:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC) Will copy to the article discussion page, 00:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to United States Department of Defense. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Specifically, adding the numerous sentence fragments as you did makes it clear that you are upset about the dearth of audits with DoD. Then you add the accountability category. Such poorly done edits are disruptive. (With this in mind, this POV warning is Wikipedia's own method of accountability.) Moreover, you loose creditability as an editor when making other, NPOV edits. Please stop. --S. Rich (talk) 15:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

What is the WP:asyndeton policy? BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 16:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

No editorial policy that I know of (see: WP:MOS), but K-I-S-S is always good advice. (Albeit I don't frequently adhere.)--S. Rich (talk) 17:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Bradley Manning, you may be blocked from editing. Again, and specifically, the misquoting in the NYT article. You inaccurately attributed the Colonel's use of the term "Poppycock". --S. Rich (talk) 01:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Correctly attributed I believe. Please see whole of Manning article history on this issue. BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 03:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Joe Lieberman. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive; until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Not sure if you are trying to be funny or what, but such edits are disruptive. Again (should it have to be repeated?) stop. --S. Rich (talk) 02:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC) Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Reactions to the United States diplomatic cables leak, you may be blocked from editing. --S. Rich (talk) 03:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC) Which no doubt would be very convenient for your own POV (see entire history of Manning article). BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 03:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I did flag this wikilink as a necessary reprimand for a 'POV Warrior'. I would contend that 'Independent Democrat' are 'weasel words' unless 'Joe' is an advocate of independent thinking and direct democracy. I understand that 'Joe' has been likening the disclosure of wrongdoing on a massive scale to the events of September 11. I regard this is disrespectful, believe this shows his support for the abuse of the classification of information and wrongdoing, and in particular consider pejorative terrorist rhetoric as a danger to the cause it blasphemes. Nevertheless I heed your point, thank you. BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 03:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your willingness to heed the point (which is not mine, but is a Wikipedia guideline). But let me restate the point -- Lieberman is in the business of expressing his POV, and you are not. If you want to be a Wikipedia editor, you must set your POV aside. Using the edit or article as a "reprimand" is not proper editing and even flagging the edit as a "reprimand" does not excuse such disruptive behavior. Normally we WP:AGF, but in this case the evidence strongly suggests that you had no good faith. --S. Rich (talk) 03:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

3RR warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on United States Department of Defense. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. BilCat (talk) 00:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC) Are you serious? Please see the discussion page! Thanks for the warning though, certainly don't want to be blocked from editing this article. BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC) Will post to the article discussion page (where I'm still the only user to have contributed on this point), 00:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Twitter Subpoena

This sort of thing is getting irritating. No matter how many times you may claim that something is like McCarthyism, it's not enough reason for you to add the category. As an earlier editor put it, it's a pretty clear-cut case of POV pushing, and by now you're skating on thin ice. Drmies (talk) 02:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Please engage in discussion ad loc. The editor you refer to and I have had one or two POV run-ins it is true, not all necessarily mea culpa. It is not a category, it is a see also, which one user has attempted to justify on the discussion page, reasoning which neither you nor your colleague have taken the trouble to respond to before making threats of 'thin ice'. BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 03:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• The loc is here: it is your disruptive editing that is the problem. Drmies (talk) 03:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Rather than issue of who is a government-questioner and who is a government apologist, why not respond to specific points on the discussion page? Please use the tool 'Google' for backing for this 'see also'.

• "Please use Google" is usually a symptom of "original research." As for the questioner and apologist, I am not sure what you are trying to say. I've responded on the talk page as well. Drmies (talk) 03:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

You cited POV, presumably these are the respective POV positions, although I always attempt to stay neutral (though fear cultural background etc may have an unforeseen effect on one's objectivity) BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 03:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Brek, the POV, in my opinion, is the comparison between the subpoena and McCarthy's hearings (I assume). You are free to feel that they are comparable, but you can't suggest or imply that they are, which you do by adding the link, without a reliable source (which you are not--nor am I) saying explicitly that they are comparable. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 05:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for now so-doing; perhaps the invitation to refer to Google may instead be the suggestion that under WP:Revert policy, that is attempting not to simply delete other users' contributions without taking a little time first to see what can be salvaged, one might like to take a second or two with the resources presumably at one's disposal to acquaint oneself of relevant information. Please also see your cited user's removal of section documenting the extent of alleged 'overreach' with edit summary claim not in refs. BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 03:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

POV pushing see also sections (3x'War economy', 1x'McCarthyism')

Brek, you've been POV-pushing see also sections on four different articles now, in one case against a 3-1 consensus. If this continues, I will not negotiate with you. I'll just ask that you be blocked. Either you learn to edit in compliance with WP:NPOV, you learn to discuss your POV edits, or you do not participate here. Those are your choices. You are in the wrong here, not Drmies or anyone else.--Chaser (talk) 03:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Please let me know which is the 3 for 1 consensus. If you are referring to the discussion in which you are engaged, US DoD, (2-3) then actually it started 1:0, with the one previously engaging in discussion talk (though only just before his edit); then 2:0, then 2:1 (no engagement in discussion), then 2:2 (still no engagement in discussion), then 2:3 (still no engagement in discussion, followed by threats without response to points). I'm not trying to be POV - I have raised what I believe are legitimate points, have provided reasoning and suggested refs, have been repeated reverted 'POV POV POV' without prior discussion. Am I really the one in danger of a block? BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 03:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are. Re-examine the talkpage.--Chaser (talk) 03:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Relevant discussions at Twitter Subpoena and United States Department of Defense. BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 06:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Bradley Manning article

Hello. You have reinstated statements which, as was already pointed out on the discussion page for Bradley Manning, are misquotations and misrepresentations of the statements actually made in the New York Times article. Please, before you do this again (and again), would you kindly read the NYT article and try to avoid misquoting/misrepresenting it again. Thank you. Nandt1 (talk) 04:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Bradley Manning, you may be blocked from editing. Specifically, this edit: [1] --S. Rich (talk) 05:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Please, please, BrekekekexKoaxKoax, could you stop trying to "spin" the New York Times story about Manning. Your latest effort was to insert into the account a statement, not found in the original source, that Col. Johnson's statement on Manning's terms of imprisonment applies "as of 13 January 2011" in a way that implies that his conditions might suddenly have been changed. There is no basis whatsoever for any such imputation in the original source. Please just let the story speak for itself. Nandt1 (talk) 05:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Brek, your editing on Manning (and other articles) is tendentious. See: WP:TE. Stop, please stop. --S. Rich (talk) 05:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)05:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

More disruptive edits

This edit [2] was disruptive. I don't know if it was intended to be funny, serious, POV, or what. The reference supporting the original sentence did not have any mention of 4chan. In any event, it is hard to assume good faith on your part with such edits. Please stop. --S. Rich (talk) 04:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC) I understand from recent events that 4chan is the mustering ground for 'Anonymous' attacks: prior to Visa being taken down due to its submission to Joe the multi-turreted Tank apparently there was a clear countdown for all 'Anonymous' operatives. All the so-called Department of Defence's Cyber Security Operations Centre (sic) had to do was to click on 4chan. Do we not credit them with undue sophistication and thus make misrepresentative edits without making this quite clear? I think you already made this point above anyway (see timing) BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 04:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Misleading edit summaries

In this edit your removed content (that might be considered critical of Wikileaks) and a citation to the Washington Post, while describing your edit only as "Reordering with removal of redundant content of section on contributions to Manning's freedom by WikiLeaks, BMSN, Courage to Resist". However, the statement and citation you removed were not present elsewhere in the article. See "Avoid misleading summaries" in Help:Edit summary.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Paraphrase re Nazis in Bradly Manning Talk

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at [[:[[3]]]], you may be blocked from editing. Further Comment: Nandt1 was too kind when s/he described your comment as gratuitous. Your comment was, in fact, a subtle but very nasty slur against those who seek to do their jobs (and their volunteer, good faith editing) with honor, respect, and integrity. My God, no one is suggesting that whistleblowers be subject to the horrors of the Holacaust! Moreover, Bradly Manning is being accorded all of the legal protections of Due Process of Law. Finally, by snidely saying you "concur with Nandt1", you include Nandt in your slur.--S. Rich (talk) 07:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC) As ever, please see discussion on the discussion page: the direct source cited is the John Pilger article, quoted by the NYT and NS, that is the subject of considerable discussion ad loc. BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 19:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Xinjiang

Move it. Begin talking over there. In the meantime, I ask that you revert to the stable version, which was before you began including this. This is how WP:BRD works. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 23:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

January 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Xinjiang. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.

In particular the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
3. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Srich32977. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Further comment -- Specifically: [4], which I have deleted from my talk page. To answer your questions: my Chinese is very rusty; I've been in the neighborhood, but not in Xinjiang; I've not read about that particular subject, but reading on the subject was not needed IOT stop the edit war; and there are lots of interesting areas of the world. In any event, your comments about me, my experiences, and my abilities are personal and unwelcome. --S. Rich (talk) 00:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Guantanamo Bay detention camp. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Additional comment to template -- by leaving in AU's version of the events (e.g., "complicit") you are not acting as a neutral and detached editor. On a side note, a bit less POV related, how can the info on rendition be tied to the main topic of the article? Have you provided the AU source merely to promote your agenda? --S. Rich (talk) 09:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)10:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Retracting my POV message via strikeout font. The AU reference does use the term complicit, but it is an opinion piece as well. With this in mind, simply adding the AU piece leads to a WP:UNDUE problem that needs correction beyond the edits I put in.--S. Rich (talk) 02:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi again SRich. As far as I'm aware I introduced no such personal commentary on this matter in my edit. I know from your repeated reverts in the Bradley Manning article how zealous you are in sticking to the exact wording used. I also see how zealous you are in your surveillance and policing of my every edit. Consequently, since I appear to have been evoking your wrath/displeasure recently, perhaps due to some of the material introduced about Manning, I thought I might be able to assuage you by being pedantic on this issue. With reference to your more substantive question, I understand that some observers have noted this episode may be a PR issue not only for the US, and I think it shows more balance to inclyde such material, rather than suggest it only 'mocks the notion of the land of the free' (quote you probably know from Manning), BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 10:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Having now seen how you thought fit to word this, 'cooperate', I would have thought that is far more tendentious: not only is it a corruption of the wording used, but also of the notion of benefit.12:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article Xinjiang has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. HXL's Roundtable, and Record 23:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that you have posted comments in a language other than English. When on the English-language Wikipedia, please always use English, no matter to whom you address your comments. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large. If the use of another language is unavoidable, please provide a translation of the comments. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. Specifically the "η αληθεστατη προφασις" in the block appeal discussion below. Showing off foreign language knowledge (or clever use of Google translate) does not aid other editors. In fact, it works against you in that you do not appear willing to engage in conversation or reasoned argument. Please concentrate on well constructed and well supported arguments in your discussions. Thank you.--S. Rich (talk) 11:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Au contraire (though it's good to know you can get ancient Gk on google translate) I have been described below as educated and literate, and while both may be in error, I would expect at least a similar level of education in the humanities from those thinking fit to judge me and this issue. What's more I understand that the WP:Primary Sources for the see also in question were written in this very tongue, so I would again suggest that at least basic familiarity would be a necessity for any self-imposed judge of the matter. Finally this is a quote from the locus classicus of a casus belli, by the author of the Melian Dialogue ('Might is Right'), which makes it seem even more relevant. That said, if you feel the temporary block is warranted I shall save my breath, and indeed reconsider whether to complain on ANI; I shall certainly, however, be suggesting this see also on the Manning discussion page. And you must see the irony of me being blocked for supposedly being anti-Manning :)) BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 11:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion for a User

Section deleted by me at that user's request, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality

It's getting to the point where you should be able to add to the article without needing someone else to rewrite it in an NPOV manner. [5] Here's your last edit. A complaint doesn't state that someone has broken rules, a complaint alleges someone has broken rules. It's also still an alegation that Mannings conditions need alleviating and that sentence should reflect it. Correcting it yourself could help demonstrate that you're trying to comply with wikipedia policy.--Cube lurker (talk) 00:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC) Will do so if so desired, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 00:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, are you even trying to follow policy. I give you credit for being intelligent, so I give you credit for knowing that your change is still not even close to neutral. I think you have valid material to offer, but if you're just screwing with us, just say so.--Cube lurker (talk) 00:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

User:'Accountability=POV' Curb Lurker... BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Take a break

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for contravening Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

You need to take some time out to think about our WP:NPOV and WP:BLP policies, as evidenced by this. You have 48 hours so please use it well. --John (talk) 18:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

This is actually more representative of the 'diff' in question: I split out my edits so that were another user not to like one he might amend that without compromising the rest; this is not an invitation to take one out of context and assert in an unfounded manner NPOV without recourse to AGF or BRD, and indeed unilaterally BLOCK another user without prior warning or discussion. BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 10:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

BrekekekexKoaxKoax (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Your reason here To whomsoever it may concern,

I understand that I have been blocked from any further editing of any Wikipedia article for some 48 hours, and that the pretext cited for this block is an edit made to one article, that relating to 'Bradley Manning', namely the addition of the see also - Judas Iscariot. I would like to note that the edit block asserts supposed violation of BLP without the block(er) itself having recourse to AGF or BRD. More generally I would like to note the prevalence of the citation of Wikipedia policies by experienced users and administrators to support the reversion/deletion of edits and material they personally deem inappropriate. I would also like to refer those empowered to intervene on my behalf - since I am apparently being punished without trial by impartial jury or the opportunity to speak in my own defence - to the relevant See Also policies.

Were the administrator in question familiar with the article in question he might have observed that some time ago, after inviting discussion on the discussion page, I had previously attempted to insert see alsos that include 'treason', 'whistleblowing', 'human rights', and 'duty'. Most recently I had attempted to insert the see also 'patriot - whether Manning is such is disputed'. Each has been deleted by other users without recourse to the relevant section of the discussion page.

I would also like to note that the most zealous policer and enforcer of 'NPOV' in the one article under question is himself happy to see the retention of the see alsos 'classified information in the US', 'journalism sourcing', and 'sensitivity of information' - all of which I understand relate to allegations by the prosecution which have not yet been even partially confirmed by examination during a trial. I personally believe that these, amongst others, are all highly relevant see also - but fear, due to previous discussions, that if I am not sufficiently careful in my wording I may here be in breach of WP:OR or WP:Synthesis in suggesting this. Citation of WP:POV, amongst other policies, in defence of edits and reverts appears to have become increasingly subtle over the past month in which I have been personally familiar with this article.

Seeking a change of tack in the face of adverse winds I attempted to abstract the principles under discussion somewhat, to the realm of 'myth', etymologically as μυθος. I understand that loci classici for principled 'betrayal' are 'Et tu, Brute' and Judas Iscariot. Seeing greater WP:RS citation of the latter, and on the basis there is perhaps greater resonance of the example of Judas than that of Marcus Junius Brutus the Younger, I introduced this exemplary case as a see also along with habeas corpus, another timeless principle and locus classicus.

I understand the three pillars of BLP that a User:John, seemingly also an administrator, has asserted - without recourse to explicit detailed rationalisation and justification - that I have violated, are

- Neutral Point of View - Verifiability - No original research

In reverse order, were User:John to have been sufficiently motivated and assiduous in his exercise of authority to have had recourse to eg Google and tried, for instance, to have googled 'Bradley Manning Judas Iscariot' before hastening to exercise his administrative powers he might have noticed that the connection has been made more than once by a WP:RS. On the first page of results alone, the connection with WikiLeaks disclosures (allegedly supplied by Manning and the crux of Manning's article and seemingly also life) is directly made: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/11/list-famous-traitors-throughout-history/print/

Re verifiability, I believe readers might check for themselves whether this is verifiable. Were this material introduced to the main body of the article, I would have included a footnote and link; I understand the citation requirements, amongst others, for see alsos are typically somewhat less stringent.

Re NPOV - the polyvalence of this 'see also', amongst other things, likewise assures compliance. I understand from Judas Iscariot that both ancient and modern interpretations vary widely, and include mercenary motivations, disillusionment, and patriotism. Whether the named subject of the article or those involved in his persecution, etymologically speaking, is supposed to be intended as the parallel, User:John might like to ponder. Perhaps User:John might like to make a considered assessment of the intended parallel that might be supposed through assessing my 89 edits to the article and 60 to its accompany discussion page in totis, although perhaps he might conclude that such suppositions are unhelpful, other mechanisms might be more conducive to the improvement of Wikipedia, and it might be preferable to AGF, and enter into discussion as and when necessary prior to unilateral action. Perhaps User:John might like to refer to Myth, and the Jungian archetypes and Levi-Straussian structural dualities referred to therein for basic understanding of the merits of elevating particular cases to a more timeless plane, assuming WP:RS is also met, quod erat demonstrandum.

I think and hope to have demonstrated that this block is utterly unwarranted, entirely objectionable, and - since it is not limited to the one article in question, but is preventing my contributions to other articles - totally disproportionate.

I would like both to appeal against this block and to ask that User:John's continued status as an 'administrator' be placed under scrutiny and review, since he would appear to have made absolutely no attempt to enter into necessary discussion with the relevant User before exercising the powers entrusted to him by the community. I would also like to appeal for an explicit apology by User:John for necessitating me to waste my time in such a ridiculous fashion when I might be making more constructive contributions to Wikipedia inter alia, as well as for the officious and patronising tone of his communication, not for my benefit but for his own, so that he may be more responsible in the future.

Perhaps he and others might like to refer to my edits to 2010 United States federal budget, and the budget sections of United States Department of Defense, United States Department of Homeland Security, United States Department of State, or to the article I created Top 100 US Federal Contractors, for other examples of my commitment to substantive, notable, reliably-sourced contributions to Wikipedia, or my edits to Bomber Harris and Sadam Hussein for instances of my contributions to articles on controversial individuals, and to Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin for my awareness that BLP issues necessitate discussion prior to controversial edits, before leaping to any over-hasty and undefended/indefensible conclusions. Perhaps my attempts, thus far unsuccessful, to improve the Government Agency and Company Infobox templates, where my call for the inclusion of the independent auditors' audit opinion is likened to WP:Sock, might also be informative both of my commitment to Wikipedia and the unhelpful impedimenta sometimes encountered along the way.

I know next to nothing about Wikipedia blocks and appeals, but presumably any block might be limited to the one article in question so that a user is free to continue with others; perhaps while I am blocked User:John might like to insert this on my behalf in the section on the Sixth Amendment and MCM 707, 'Article 10', since my previous attempts to add this have been reverted by the 'POV' police on the grounds of 'WP:OR', although I believe this is no longer maintained. I would also like him to consider my readiness to engage in User talk and to acknowledge and address any shortcomings identified in my edits in totis.

Many thanks,

Yours,

BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 21:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Where to begin? Ok let's start with this: This is not a court of a law and you are not on trial. Blocks are intended to prevent damage to Wikipedia, and you were in fact damaging it. John did not need to discuss the matter with you as anyone can see from this page you have been repeatedly advised of our policies on maintaining a neutral point of view. If you can't see how the link you added was needlessly inflammatory you probably shouldn't edit BLP articles at all anymore. Nobody has suggested that all of your edits are bad, else you would have been indefinitely blocked. The hope is that you will use this time to review your actions and try to understand the policies being enforced here. You don't have to agree with them but you do have to abide by them. If you think John shows a pattern of misusing his administrative powers you can file a request for comment on him, it will need to be certified by at least two other users in good standing before proceeding. The only technical means to block a user from a single article is to protect it, locking out everyone. Since you were the user causing a problem blocking you individually is more desirable. Please try to keep any future unblock requests brief and to the point. You would also be well advised to read this page before requesting unblock again. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

How about, prior to satisfactory resolution, I guarantee not to edit Manning's article for the remainder of the duration of the proposed block, and am then allowed to edit other articles? Presumably that compromise would be satisfactory to all in the meantime, thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 06:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict): Please see paras 4 and 8 for the most succinct discussion. I attempted 'patriot - whether Manning is such is disputed', which is presumably pretty NPOV; this, like many others, was reverted as POV by the same user(s) who have populated much of my page above which you refer to in relation to a completely different point; if we replace one locus classicus with another - Marcus Junius Brutus/Et tu Brute would that be permissible? Is that less relevant under WP:RS? Please provide explicit discussion and rationalisation why this see also violates BLP rather than asserting 'if you can't see...then you probably shouldn't edit'. I am not 'causing a problem'. Please respond to points raised in unblock request before declining it. BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 21:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• Try to put this in perspective and you may see how inflammatory this link really is. As an obviously educated person you are more than likely familiar with Dante's Inferno, in which Brutus and Judas are in the lowest rings of Hell, being eternally chewed upon by Satan himself as the most egregious sinners in all of history. Think about that and ask yourself if it is really fair and unbiased to suggest that Mr. Manning belongs in that club, with persons who even today, thousands of years later are still associated with the worst kinds of treachery. In a thousand years will anyone remember Manning, envisioning him in Hell with Sherron Watkins and Linda Tripp? Doubtful at best. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Doubtful is not good enough for a block. Also, the 'POV' you seem to be assuming may or may not be mine. I would place a request for mediation on User:SRich's page for elucidation on this particular point, but fear I am not able to due to my EDIT BLOCK. BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 21:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I said doubtful at best. In my personal opinion it is extremely unlikely he will be long remembered as one of the most treacherous people in the history of Western Civilization, which is what is implied by linking him to Judas. Is that clear enough for you or would you like to continue to be coy and pretend you don't understand what is inflammatory about it now that I have explained it twice? Whether it is honestly what you think or not is not something we can know, we can only go by your actions, and your actions suggest that Judas and Manning should have their articles linked because they are the same type of person. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Beeblebrox, please as already invited weigh my 89 edits to the Manning article and 60 to its accompanying discussion page in totis before hastening to any presumption, which is presumably then irrelevant anyway to a see also supported by a WP:RS which has a notable ab uno disce omnes attendant benefit, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 00:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

BrekekekexKoaxKoax (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Please see rationale set out above; decliner of unblock request also asserts 'NPOV' without any attempt to explain how the highly polyvalent see also introduced, per WP:RS, is an instance of my violating NPOV. Perhaps, if this see also is interpreted by certain administrators as indicative of my 'POV', they might like to spell out exactly what they are supposing my 'POV' to be in this instance, so that any further discussion they are necessitating might be more 'brief and to the point'. Please see also AGF. BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You are obviously educated and literate. You also obviously hold strong views about certain subjects. You may not express them here, and you may not disrupt the encyclopedia. This block is only transient, but please use the time to consider your situation, bearing in mind that in terms of editing our way governs here. Please do not edit in such a way as to trigger a further block, as it may well be for longer. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Why does it violate BLP? Suppose there was a page about you and someone put

See also

• Judas Iscariot
• Traitor
• nutcase

Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Were these supported by references in WP:RS I would accept others' reasoned points of view, and would deem it highly presumptive of anyone to rule otherwise. BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 23:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

And since such a source does not exist, you were violating BLP. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind, Breke, that continued usage of this unblock template to no avail (i.e. request granted) could lead to your talk page access being revoked. This is only a 48 hour block...get some patience, take a breath, read our policies, and move on. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 21:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I would like to point out that User:Chohoo and User:HXML, who have contributed to the peppering of my page above, amongst other places, with 'POV' accusations, previously encountered me on the Xinjiang discussion page where, seemingly to the chagrin of those opposed, thus precipitating these very accusations, the edits I was suggesting were finally approved, after a bit of a struggle and threats of an edit block, for inclusion and retention in the article, by 'consensus'. BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 23:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The POV accusations of articles besides Bradley Manning are irrelevant. Enough with your diatibes. Focus on your conduct at that page alone.

And stop twisting the words of others. You choose to ignore the advice of an editor who is far more experienced than you.

Stop spelling my user name incorrectly; the same typo has occurred twice. So is this deliberate? --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 06:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if this is a suitable place and time to refer to the issue, but I came under a most bizarre 'cyber attack' immediately thereafter, which enabled me to access all websites via my wifi router other than Wikipedia and WikiLeaks, regardless of the numerous devices I tried, although when connected by ethernet cable access was without problem; the senior Apple 'genius' who finally resolved the issue through reloading of firmware etc was incredulous and diagnosed this issue as a 'goat' best expurgated through the liberal 'sprinkling of garlic'. BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 23:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• You obviously [6] have strong opinions about Mr. Manning that are affecting your ability to maintain neutrality on this subject. I would suggest that you voluntarily topic-ban yourself from this subject after the block expires or you will most likely end up blocked again. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

This edit is entirely decontextualized - please see discussion page ad loc. for elucidation; it does not relate to my 'neutrality', it is a reference to Pilger's reference to the 'Nuremberg Principle' which in fact now serves as a focal point of the Manning article, although as in a number of other instances I had some difficulty initially in ensuring this point was heard. BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 23:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

{{unblock|reason=I am seemingly obliged to appeal once again due to another 'appeal declined'. The first asserted violation of NPOV; I requested rationalization and referred to polyvalency - ''exemplorum gratia'', Manning='traitor' to 'exemplary' US; or Lamo='traitor' betraying 'exemplary' Manning to US='high priests' who were a little put out after the 'overthrow of the money-lenders' tables'=diplomatic cables release/Collateral Murder video. These are just two amongst many other possible interpretations, such polyvalence presumably justifying Jungian sublimation to the loftier plane of [[archetypes]] after previous attempts to introduce the see also 'patriot - whether Manning is such is disputed' were reverted without prior discussion. The second asserted that I had strong opinions and that 'you may not express them here', again without rationalization of how this might relate to the specific violation of BLP in question, and also apparently without noticing that this 'see also' is a reference to a WP:RS, for which see link provided above, amongst many others. Please can someone either read and respond to what I'm saying, ''id est'' spell out for me exactly and incontravertibly how this violates BLP, and/or request that User:SRich, who my user page above would suggest may be most inveterate 'opponent'/most beneficial and timely cautioner, contribute here, since I believe he is qualified to speak on this particular case, and I am unable to ask him to intervene due to my edit block. Thanks, [[User:BrekekekexKoaxKoax|BrekekekexKoaxKoax]] ([[User talk:BrekekekexKoaxKoax#top|talk]]) 23:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)}}

P.S. Perhaps User:John might also be invited to contribute further through explicit rationalization, in defence of his block of another user. I would imagine were he to think fit to repeal his own act that might suffice, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 23:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I have just noticed this from the blocked IP addresses and usernames list I found:

0:35, 25 January 2011, John (talk | contribs) blocked #2278338 (expires on 26 January 2011 at 00:35, account creation blocked) (Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "BrekekekexKoaxKoax". The reason given for BrekekekexKoaxKoax's block is: "Violations of the Biographies of living persons policy".)

As far as I know I have made no attempt to violate any block, and so this is a further instance of User:John unilaterally employing administrator powers vested in him by the community without adequate justification. BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 00:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh please do come down off the ledge and change out of the superhero costume. It's perfectly normal to autoblock the underlying ip of a blocked user. John is not a checkuser and none of us would ever have known what your ip was if you hadn't just told us. You suggest others do research before they speak but apparently do not expect the same from yourself. John doesn't need to justify this block, your actions justified it. The sooner you accept that, whether you agree with it or not, the better off you will be. It's not productive to throw a fit and make accusations of bad faith after you have already had your unblock declined twice. That's our way of telling you we believe the block is justified and it will not be overturned. You also currently have two open unblock requests. I am turning off the older one and leaving the newest for a previously uninvolved admin to review. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict, and need to boot up computter as iPad tricky thing with which to resolve said conflict)

User:Beeblebrox, rather than using your evident considerable knowledge of all things Wikipedia to perpetuate injustice and moreover threaten an indefinite editing block, which is what I understand your WP:Spider means, while further undermining my cause by subtly removing the reasoned unblock request rather than that flagging the neglect thereof, why not either respond to the specific points raised or follow the specific paths for remediation I have suggested, thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 04:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC) I'm also not happy with your attempt to divide up and polarize the Wikipedia community of editors, of which 'we' are all integral parts, between 'our' and 'you', 05:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, "our" in this context refers to the duly appointed representatives of the Wikipedia community, i.e. three administrators, who hold this to be a valid block. I have not suggested you are not part of that community, merely that you have been disregarding some of its rules. I have nothing else to add at this time. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification of this point at least, but does not your inability/refusal to rationalize, as specifically requested, exactly how the see also in question violates WP:BLP and what's more warrants a block without prior recourse to eg BRD under AGF, call into question whether you are best placed to adjudicate on this issue and the validity of your prior intervention, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 05:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

(earlier edit conflict)

Having now had the opportunity to explore User:Beelzebub's WP:Spider more fully I note that it relates to so-called edit wars: this clearly is not one of those, since one of the two Users in question was given no opportunity either to war (undesirable) or to defend himself (via BRD in accordance with AGF, more desirable), by the preemptive strike/bolt from the blue of an edit block placed apparently in error by an otherwise well-meaning but not always true-aiming administrator. (I note that the new account the same User:John blocked on an unsupported hunch does not in fact seem to relate to my ip address, if that's what these nos represent, while even were it to have done there may be more than one prospective editor hoping to be allowed to use the same address, and hope in his enthusiasm to exert his administrative powers User:John hasn't deterred a new user from joining the Wikipedia community, but merely similarly delayed his/her best efforts), BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 06:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

After User:Beeblebrox's closure of not one but two unblock requests, do I need to close the following flag and make a further appeal? Should this be escalated to ?ANI?, with all users (un)involved allowed to participate in the ensuing discussion, to ensure more speedy and satisfactory resolution (12 hrs now)? Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 06:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC) I note this user's inability/unwillingness to acknowledge the polyvalence of the see also introduced undermines his assertions of NPOV, made without supporting rationalization, and likewise calls into question the validity of his closure of not one but two unblock requests, 07:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

{{unblock|reason=Please can some attend to my request as I have been unfairly blocked, in complete violation of AGF BRD etc, for over six hours already; I note User:John who placed the block in the first place without prior attempt at discussion is still active: will someone please suggest to him he takes the time to read this page, understand his mistake and repeal his act via self-revert, or do so themselves, many thanks, [[User:BrekekekexKoaxKoax|BrekekekexKoaxKoax]] ([[User talk:BrekekekexKoaxKoax#top|talk]]) 00:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)}} Closure of flag by prior notification in order to issue new unblock request after neglect of former. BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 10:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• Just to confirm that I have read everything on this page and still stand solidly behind the block. You are free to be unblocked once you demonstrate that you understand why comparing anyone with Judas Iscariot is a terrible idea, and comparing a living person with him is completely unacceptable. Until then, I think you should meditate on the advice I and others have given you. --John (talk) 04:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

User:John, while I thank you for at least ostensibly considering remedying your error, I fear in 'standing stolidly' behind your own block you failed to either explicitly rationalize, as requested, in an exact and incontravertible manner, the nature of the violation you chose to identify, without recourse to AGF or BRD, or to address the points I have raised on NPOV which you seem to think to be the issue: namely if by this see also Manning may be compared to one of the Apostles, by the very same figure he may be comparable in certain respects to the Messiah himself, which I for one take to be far from defamatory if that's your BLP concern, though this is presumably irrelevant since any comparison is that of a WP:RS, not mine. Furthermore other see alsos are abstract nouns, and presumably you are not finding fault with the authors of those on the grounds they are suggesting Manning be treated as an inanimate object or a disembodied concept, are you, or is this last a fallacious argument, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 04:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to make it clear to all in a convenient manner, the 'figure' wikilinked above is to the postmodern literary trope of including an image of a martyr sacrificing himself for a greater good - which, if that is what the WP:RS is doing, is presumably neither defamatory nor a violation of WP:BLP, or in any way a grounds for the block of another User. I understand postmodernism means acceptance of a plurality of viewpoints, which as long as they are WP:RSed and WP:Balanced and WP:Due Weighted, which I think in this article of 'Bradley Manning' this see also would be, should presumably be encouraged in the constant drive to make Wikipedia more encyclopedic and worthy of reference, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 04:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

As an aside it would appear that this, e pluribus unum, might be of interest to a wider study of the mentality of those who presume to assume coercive powers over others and yet are either unwilling or unable to support their assertions of violated rules, cited as a pretext for the exercise of such powers, through rationalization when the apparent abuse of the authority vested in them by the community is questioned. BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 07:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC) Lord Acton? 07:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, to assist with timely and satisfactory resolution, those administrators who have thought fit to impose and uphold a block, without prior recourse either to AGF or BRD, would care to expound upon the nature of the 'NPOV' violation they are suppositing. In hope and thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 08:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Further to demonstrate that η αληθεστατη προφασις for my block is indeed the betterment of Wikipedia perhaps those administrators who have chosen to partake in the discussion thus far might like to make on my behalf - since I appear currently to be being prevented from doing so myself - the edit I have asked for above to the Manning article in question. I provided above a link to Article 10 of the UCMJ but this appears to have been removed during closure of this unblock request. I imagine those familiar with the Manning article who are hereby contributing to its maintenance are more than familiar with how best to source the UCMJ - especially so User:John who both installed this block in the first place and has explicitly stated above that he is familiar with this request for the betterment of Wikipedia, yet somewhat surprisingly appears yet to have acted upon it. Once this has been carried over I'm happy to post many other edits here so that administrators whose concern is indeed the betterment of Wikipedia can carry these to the relevant places on my behalf, during any remaining period of User:John's block. Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 08:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

BrekekekexKoaxKoax (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

After a block had been placed without recourse to AGF or BRD, due to this edit (a sequence split out so that were another user not to like one element he might amend that without compromising the whole) the first unblock request was reverted asserting violation of NPOV, missing polyvalency, the second WP:OR, missing WP:RS, without recourse to the specific requests for rationalization that have been made. Furthermore, while similarly having no recourse to AGF or BRD these refusals further attempted to isolate one user from the community and also threatened worse mistreatment rather than acknowledging prior fault. In accordance with WP:Rope I would like to signal my intention, as soon as this block expires, to raise a complaint on ANI, and to enter into discussion on the Manning discussion page about the considerable merits of the inclusion of the see also in question. As previously, I would like to appeal User:John's block. I would also suggest that unwarranted action without prior attempt to enter discussion, and unwarranted threats of further blocks, may require reprimand/discipline on the grounds of overreach for any administrator deemed guilty. If the next uninvolved administrator thinks fit to revert the block forthwith, many thanks, otherwise please read the whole of this section prior to reverting, and then revert, many thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 10:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

First, let me encourage you to use simple, clear English to communicate with other users. I am sure that your writing style is not the way you talk to other people. It doesn't make you sound smarter, it just makes it hard to understand you. Second, your unblock request does not, so far as I can understand it, say that you have a plan to stop trying to add your personal opinions to articles, so I have no grounds for overturning this block. Looking at your talk page, I see that people have tried to tell you not to add your opinions to articles before, but you haven't stopped. Now you have a short block. If you continue breaking the rules after your block expires, you'll be blocked again, for a longer period of time. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You have already appealed the block by User:John, and more than once your appeal has been found groundless - going to WP:ANI will do nothing but bring additional eyes on your activities as John's block (both to the username and to the IP) was 110% within policy and requirements to protect this project. Warnings (not threats) of future blocks is also clearly warranted: you're treading very thin ice right now with your insistence that you can violate WP:RS, WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:CONSENSUS or any of the myriad of applicable policies for an encyclopedia. Yes, I said encyclopedia; if you want to rant about people, get a blog and edit there. Note that you're note being singled out - you're one of literally thousands of people who simply refuse to abide by the 5 pillars of Wikipedia. The fact that your block is for only 48hr proves that we think you're intelligent enough to understand these things and become a trusted (and trustable) editor. Your next steps will prove or disprove that theory. Note that good faith is not a toboggan that everyone will ride into the trees - if you faily to learn, then you will fail to edit. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Still reducens ad absurdum, (1) Would User:FlasherQueen think otherwise were he to read my other contributions to Manning, including defence of his 'orientation' and questioning whether that is indeed relevant for inclusion in the first place? Would he spell out what personal opinion I am adding via this 'diff', and what part of it he feels, incorrectly, to be unsupported by WP:RS. Threats are unwelcome. The page above may appear incriminating but is in fact almost - though not - entirely peppered by ad hominem comments by those frustrated by their failure to influence consensus on the relevant discussion pages and apparently seeking to discredit the person responsible for the edits they personally dislike. If he finds it difficult to understand basic communication perhaps he should not presume to judge its contents and merits. (2) Would User:Bwilkins spell out the nature of the 'rant about people' he feels he has identified, suggest against what 'person' he is assuming this 'rant' is directed (since I do not know), and consider whether if any of the above is indeed a 'violation'/'110%' within policy whether these policies are in dire need of improvement to prevent abuse by over-hasty 'administrators' who appear upon occasion unwilling or unable to AGF/BRD. Similarly, threats are not welcome. BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Using Greek terms doesn't make you sound right, and insisting that people explain to you exactly what is wrong with your edits after they've repeatedly done so doesn't mean you can keep breaking the rules. If you understand the rules and can follow them, fine. You're welcome here, and we're happy to have your help. If you understand the rules but won't follow them, you will be blocked again, for longer times each time, until eventually everyone is tired of dealing with you and your block becomes permanent. If you aren't able to understand the rules, and so can't help breaking them, the same will happen. That isn't a threat of any kind, it's just information from someone who's seen hundreds of people in the position you're in now. Some of them decide to stay, and that's nice. Some of them choose the long block, and that's okay, too. Totally your personal choice. By the way... my personal advice is that you avoid using the big words and the Greek in cases when you don't know how to use them correctly. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Latin? How about attending to the quiddities of each? BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

nonsense, Breke. no one here is making threats, not even I or any admins who participated in this mess of a process which you alone exacerbated. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 02:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

He's now blocked from editing this page for the duration of the original block. Please let sleeping dogs lie, it is generally considered impolite to argue with someone who cannot respond. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

BrekekekexKoaxKoax (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

supra BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The multiple violations of policy represented by that diff, and in particular by its edit summary, have been explained at length above. And, now that you've had half a dozen unsuccessful unblock requests, and now that you're starting in on other editors, I'm removing your ability to edit this page for the remaining 25 or so hours of your block. Please take this time to consider the advice above, so that you can edit productively when your block expires. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Probably did me a favour, otherwise looks like I'd have bleated for specifics to no avail for another 25 hrs... BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits ?to Manning?

I'm not going to touch your edits at this time. I'm also not going to report your edits at this time. What I'm doing is making one last apeal to you person to person. I think you make a decent amount of good edits. But you continue to make others that blow right through NPOV. You got blocked for it, and now you've come back and continued down the same path. If you continue ignoring the policies, you're going to end up blocked long term. I won't be the one that does it. But I've seen this dozens of times before and will probably see it dozens of times in the future. If you're looking for the wikipedia verson of martyrdom, that's fine. However if you want to bring information that others might miss, yet still work within wikipedia policy, you're running out of time. Again, not a threat, but a historical observation. All your choice. Regards.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Cube lurker, I'm a little confused - when we first met, on the Sarah Palin article, you were saying that the very word accountability was POV and I then ended up on ANI before this was immediately scotched. User:SRich, who makes a vast number of POV edits to the Manning article, is an experienced administrator, and is very good at peppering this page with incriminating material, when our discussions could just as well take place on his page; I see from the above that a number of administrators who thought fit to block me were influenced in least in part by what they saw above. I can't help wondering, in light of the above, and the complete unwillingness I've just encountered of a single 'administrator' to specify in an exact and incontravertible manner the nature of the 'violation' that I'm supposed to have perpetrated, until we've met a few times more, whether this apparent forbearance for alleged peccadilloes is actually a clever attempt to stitch me up. (Of the edits 'I'm not going to report this time', another administrator who has reverted a fair number of my edits has seemingly already reviewed in depth, leading to the revert of a see also to a Yahoo subpoena in an article on a Twitter subpoena, and of a see also in the Manning article; a 'POV' 'POV' user's reworking of another one of these edits to Manning was reverted by the same administrator; and the rest have been allowed to stand.) It would be really helpful, as above, to specify in an exact and incontravertible manner your issue. Nevertheless, I will AGF, and certainly thank you for your advice, as I certainly do not wish to be blocked again, and clearly if 'administrators' are unable or unwilling to enter into dialogue before making blocks, then one has to be somewhat more obsequious. And it probably would be advisable for me to stand back from time to time from the Manning article as about 5,000,000 warnings above relate to this, and if you can't see the rabbit, you're usually it... BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)