Please do not add commentary and your personal analysis of an article into Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. - pm_shef 21:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. Stifle 21:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, unless you explain the reason behind the warning you placed on my page, I will be deleting it. None of my edits have constituted vandalism, but rather have been reverting your vandalism. Thank you. pm_shef 21:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, forget it, I'm going to be more blunt. My earlier comment goes for Elliott Frankl and Yehuda Shahaf, too. Samaritan and pm_shef and I have all made numerous attempts to engage you guys in a good faith discussion of your concerns, and all you've done in response is to make invalid accusations of vandalism as if you owned the articles (which you don't — Wikipedia does). If you so much as revert a comma on any of those articles without explaining and discussing it on the appropriate talk page first, you can consider yourself blocked. Bearcat 03:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For disregarding my warning to discuss your edits on the talk page rather than simply reverting without discussion, you have been blocked for 24 hours. I'm going to make myself very clear: when the block expires, if you make even one further revert without explaining your position on the article's talk page, you will be blocked again for a longer period than 24 hours. Bearcat 05:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Seeing as you have added content repeatedly to the Elliott Frankl page without providing sources or verifying the information, the edits constitute vandalism. {Please stop deliberately introducing incorrect information into articles. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. - pm_shef 05:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make stale 3RR reports. I've removed it. Don't put it back William M. Connolley 06:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed your reintroduction of the report. --Syrthiss 11:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Leotardo: Please stop. If you continue to blank pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that removal of this, or any other warning tags, is in violation of Wiki policy. - pm_shef 15:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The following is the basic evidence of sockpuppetry between you an User:Leotardo and User:Skycloud. These identical edits [1], [2] by Poche1 and Skycloud, and protecting each other from allegations of sockpuppetry: [3], [4], [5], and furthermore, both Poche1 and Skycloud were created while Leotardo was blocked for 24 hours for 3RR violation: see the logs, Skycloud created, 22:47, 27 March 2006, Poche1 created, 19:29, 27 March 2006, Leotardo blocked for 3RR, 12:52, 27 March 2006, and here is the edit you made while Leotardo was blocked for making the same edit. Leotardo, Poche1. This is very strong evidence that you are a sockpuppet of Leotardo. Removing the tag again, and removing this evidence from your talk page will be considered vandalism, and I will report it if you continue. Mangojuice 20:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]