User talk:Maxximiliann

Question for administrator

{{admin help}} On ANI Jeffro is identified by In ictu oculi as bigot for his pattern of expressing bigoted views against a persecuted minority, the Jehovah's Witnesses. Based on In ictu's comments and my own interaction with Jeffro I reply to yet another of Jeffro's attacks and am swiftly banned.

Meanwhile, Jeffro (and now BlackClab) continue to openly express their bigotry, In ictu continues to vehemently oppose Jeffro and ... nothing happens, not even a warning. What's going on here? What am I missing? --—Maxximiliann talk 04:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your continued false accusations of 'bigotry' have been reported.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the various threads on this talk page, it's my assessment that you're a tendentious editor, and in this context, I agree with your indefinite block. PhilKnight (talk) 15:35, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe Views?

Please desist from changing articles to match the fringe views of Jehovah's Witnesses. You might like to start a section at articles' Talk pages, however it is unlikely that you will be able to indicate any widespread support for the alternative views taught by ~~your religion~~Jehovah's Witnesses. Thanks.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is it fringe when they're based on accurate and reliable sources? Wikipedia is a place for truth not your noetical bigotry. Maxximiliann (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources indicate the widely accepted chronology of the period. They do not support the JW chronology. And you didn't even provide any sources. You will need to discuss at the article's Talk pages to reach a concensus, however there are no mainstream sources in support of your views.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I've reverted you again. Dougweller (talk) 14:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are both misinformed. According to the Cyrus Cylinder, Cyrus conquered Babylon in October 539 B.C.E. Cyrus’ first regal year began in the spring of 538 B.C.E. This means that the Jews would be back in their homeland by October 537 B.C.E. or “the seventh month (Tishri)” as Ezra 3:1 says.

It is a simple matter of counting back 70 years which brings us to 607 BCE for Jerusalem’s destruction. Dates other than 607 BCE ignore the statements in Scripture that the land would be desolate for 70 years. (Daniel 9:1,2) [1] Maxximiliann (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your other edits I'm concerned that you don't have any grasp yet of WP:NPOV. I've raised them at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible#Editor changes biblical dates, etc where I hope you will explain your edits. You are also failing to use WP:Edit summaries, which is sufficient reason for many people to revert you. Dougweller (talk) 14:19, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reminder concerning the "edit summaries" field. Maxximiliann (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You said: This means that the Jews would be back in their homeland by October 537 B.C.E.. That is wrong. The JW conclusion that the Jews 'must' have returned the following year is entirely speculative. Josephus explicitly states that the temple foundations were laid in Cyrus second year, which means the Jews were back in his first year, which means Cyrus decree was made at the beginning of hist first year, and the Jews then had 6 months to make the 4-month journey back to Jerusalem.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Argumentum assertio does not a valid substitute for actual evidence make. Try again. Maxximiliann (talk) 01:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You also said: It is a simple matter of counting back 70 years which brings us to 607 BCE for Jerusalem’s destruction. That is also wrong. Jeremiah 25:12 (NWT) states: "“‘And it must occur that when seventy years have been fulfilled I shall call to account against the king of Babylon and against that nation". The seventy years were a period during which all the nations served Babylon (Jeremiah 25:11). One of the nations listed as serving Babylon was the Medes (Jeremiah 25:25), but the Medes were not serving Babylon when the Median general Darius conquered Babylon in 539. After Babylon was conquered, the nations were serving Persia. The book of Daniel quite clearly identifies when Babylon's king was 'called to account' (Daniel 5:26-31).--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your exegesis of Jeremiah 25:25 is shockingly sophistic. Verses 12-14 & 17-26 lists those who would suffer Jehovah God's judgment; 'drink from his cup of the wine of his rage.' (25:15,16) It most certainly does not assert what you mendaciously allege. As I've already explicated, the seventy years of desolation Jerusalem had to experience was precisely that. (2 Chronicles 36:20,21; Jeremiah 25:12; Zechariah 1:12; Daniel 9:2; Zechariah 7:5; Jeremiah 29:10) Nowhere is this figure presented as allegorical or figurative in any way, shape or form. Your whole argument, then, has no purchase whatsoever. Maxximiliann (talk) 01:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to reply to each of your errors here. Suffice to say, your religious opinions are not welcome in historical articles.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your harassment is not welcome nor will it be tolerated. Consider yourself warned. —Maxximiliann talk 02:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

POV-pushing of your religious beliefs without any support from neutral sources is neither welcome nor tolerated. Unlike your 'warning', that's based on policy.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And in what possible world do you think your atheistic bent is accepted as noetical integrity? Multiple editors on here have provided independent, verifiable evidence for 537 BCE as being the year in which the exiled Jews in Babylon were repatriated. No matter your illusions, all your petulant bleating cannot change established history. Aut disce aut discede.—Maxximiliann talk 04:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your attempt at ad hominem is irrelevant. And there are in fact more than twice the number of results on Google books for searching on 538[2] instead of 537[3]. Josephus indicates that the temple foundations were laid in Cyrus' second year (Against Apion, Book I, chapter 21), and Ezra 3:8 places that event in the 2nd month (Iyyar), corresponding with May of 537 BCE. Ezra 3:1 says that the Jews were "in their cities" in the 7th month (Tishri) of the year before, corresponding with October of 538 BCE. Various sources indicate either 538 or 537. Following is a mixed list of secular, Jewish and Christian sources that indicate 538 for the return. This is not an exhaustive list.

Fire Bible-NIV-Student - Page 580, Donald Stamps, Carey Huffman, J. Wesley Adams – 2009: “In stage one (538 BC), 50000 exiles returned, led by Zerubbabel and Jeshua (cf. Ezra 2).”
Fire Bible Student Edition: New International Version - Page 580, Hendrickson Publishers, Carey Huffman – 2010: “Note that the first group of Jewish exiles in 538 BC returned to Jerusalem”
Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible - Page 449, 2000: “According to Ezra, the exiled Jews returned to Judah and Jerusalem en masse in response to a decree by Cyrus king of Persia (538; 1:1-4).”
The Catholic Encyclopedia: Volume 8, Charles George Herbermann, Edward Aloysius Pace, Condé Bénoist Pallen – 1913: “I. HISTORY OF THE JEWS. — This history may be divided into various periods in accordance with the leading phases which may be distinguished in the existence of the Jewish race since the Return in 538 bc”
A History of the Christian Tradition: - Page 22, Thomas C. McGonigle, Thomas D. McGonigle, James F. Quigley – 1988: “The Return from Exile In 538 BCE a new political power, Persia, ...”
The Controversial Sholem Asch - Page 269, Ben Siegel – 1976: “Apocalyptic tendencies that led to both Jewish and Christian Messianic movements were apparent as early as Ezekiel, but they did not "flower" until after the Jewish return (538 BC) from Babylon. “
Kings of the Jews: the origins of the Jewish nation - Page 152, Norman Gelb - 2010 - 246 pages : “RETURN TO ZION Like their return from Egypt almost eight centuries earlier, the return of the Jews from Babylonia was in waves, beginning in 538 BCE.”
Jews and Christians: Graeco-Roman views - Page 3, Molly Whittaker – 1984: “When the Persians took Babylon, some of the exiles were permitted to return (c. 538), although many remained...”
The amazing adventures of the Jewish people - Page 37, Max I. Dimont – 1984: “The first Zionade, launched in 538 BCE, had a distinguished leadership — two princes of the house of David, ...”
The Creative Era Between the Testaments, Carl Gordon Howie, Carl Gordon Howie – 1965: “Under provisions of the royal decree, Sheshbazzar, who was appointed governor of the Jerusalem area, and his company of fellow Jews left Babylon for Jerusalem during the reign of Cyrus. The immediate purpose of their return in 538 BC ...”
Fantastic Victory: Israel's Rendezvous With Destiny - Page 129, W. Cleon Skousen – 2011: “One year later, in 538 BC, Cyrus authorized 50000 Jews to return to the ruins of their beloved Jerusalem for the purpose of rebuilding it. These 50000 “Zionists” required four months to reach their destination and were led by a man who ...”
The Last Tango in Baghdad - Page 1, Albert Khabbaza MD, Albert Khabbaza, M.d. – 2010: “The Jews were dispersed mostly to Persia and Babylonia. The opportunity to return arrived in 538 BCE when Cyrus of Persia issued the famous decree permitting the Jews to return to Jerusalem and rebuild their Temple.”
The Age of the Maccabees, Annesley William Streane – 1898: “BEFORE entering on our main subject, it is desirable that we should take a brief retrospective glance over that part of the earlier history which lies between the return of the Jews from their captivity in Babylon (538 BC)...”
Holman Concise Bible Dictionary - Page 210, Holman Bible Editorial Staff – 2011: “Jehoiachin's grandson, Zerubbabel, led the first exiles back from Babylon in 538 BC (Ezra 2:2; Hag. 1:1).”
The Jewish People: A Pictorial History, Israel Program for Scientific Translations, Israel Program for Scientific Translations – 1973: “Permission was given to the Jews to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the Temple. The first return in 538 bce involved 42.360 free men and 7337 slaves; the territory assigned to them was small..”
Merriam-Webster's collegiate encyclopedia - Page 857, Merriam-Webster, Inc – 2000: “Cyrus the Great allowed them to return in 538 BC, and the Temple of Jerusalem was rebuilt.”
The myth of the Jewish race - Page 97, Raphael Patai, Jennifer Patai – 1989: “We can gain a very rough idea of the extent of Jewish-Babylonian intermarriage in the half-century that elapsed between their arrival as exiles in Babylon and their first return to the land of Judah (538 BC)...”
A Guide Through the Old Testament - Page 16, Celia Brewer Marshall, Celia B. Sinclair – 1989: “Jews return to Judea from the Exile beginning in 538”
Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian conceptions - Page 89, James M. Scott – 1997, “including the return in the year 538 under the leadership of Sheshbazzar (Ezra 1 ).”
A Concise History of the Jewish People - Page 11, Naomi E. Pasachoff, Robert J. Littman – 2005: “the return to Israel under the Persians in 538 BCE”

It is particularly noteworthy that ~~you~~JWs 'need' 537 to be the 'correct' year in order to support ~~your~~ their religious superstitions about 607 and 1914. However, even JW literature uses words such as "likely" when asserting that the Jews returned in 537 (e.g. Insight on the Scriptures, volume 1, page 568). There is no reason at all to dogmatically select 537, and based on what is stated by Josephus and Ezra, 538 is in fact considerably more likely.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic! We're almost there. Now, pull out your calculator and follow along: "537 + 70 = ???" —Maxximiliann talk 05:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. You're really losing track of your own argument now! 537 was the year the temple foundations were reconstructed, as I indicated above. It's not even the event JWs actually point to for the end of the 70 years.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I'll be reverting you're malicious edit on 537 BCE page post haste.

Because you keep harping on about Jeremiah 25:25 (at various Talk pages where I didn't even mention it), I will note that the point I made remains completely intact even without my reference to that verse. No 'calling to account' befell the king of Babylon in 537. The nations were no longer serving the lineage of Nebuchadnezzar after 539, which is explicitly indicated by Daniel as the judgement of Babylon's king.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right because Babylon maintained its world dominance alongside the Medo-Persian empire ... oh ... wait ...

I mean, it's not like the Medo-Persians ransacked and anhiliated them ... oh ... wait ... —Maxximiliann talk 05:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do you not understand that you're confirming that the Babylonian empire ended in 539 when its king was called to account?!!--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strawman. Try again —Maxximiliann talk 00:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Read Jeremiah 25:12. It gives an order of events. 1) 70 years ends. 2) Babylon's king is called to account. Babylon's king was called to account in 539. Ergo, 70 years ended in 539. Ergo, 70 years of nations serving Babylon began in 609. Babylon replaced the Assyrian world power in 609.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I keep telling you, your exegesis is fatuous for it obviates the context of 2 Chronicles 36:20,21; Jeremiah 25:12; Zechariah 1:12; Daniel 9:2; Zechariah 7:5 and Jeremiah 29:10, among others. Try again. —Maxximiliann talk 00:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can bluster all you like. I've already provided facts demonstrating that you're wrong.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How can you write such putrid filth without taking a shower afterwards?! You insist on ignoring conclusive archaeological evidence (Cyrus Cylinder), continue to talk out of both sides of your mouth and, ridiculously enough, can't do simple arithmetic! Seriously, do us all a favor and take a powder!—Maxximiliann talk 01:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

_{The Cyrus Cylinder confirms events for 539 for the fall of Babylon. That year is not in dispute. The chronology of the Neo-Babylonian period that you seek to present is not supported by any secular sources whatsover.}--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you've already been advised, you are banned from this page until such time as the action I've filed against you is resolved by the competent authorities here on Wikipedia. —Maxximiliann talk 14:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013

Your recent editing history at Book of Exekiel shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Dougweller (talk) 20:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Argumentum "vocatis ollam ollæ nigra". Sorry, try again. Maxximiliann (talk) 20:51, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Nebuchadnezzar II shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Dougweller (talk) 20:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Argumentum "vocatis ollam ollæ nigra". Sorry, try again. Maxximiliann (talk) 20:51, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an argument, it's an official warning. Actions have consequences and I suggest you read the 3RR link carefully. Dougweller (talk) 07:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you missed the thrust of my rejoinder. In other words, "Physician heal thyself."—Maxximiliann talk 00:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Maxximiliann! Thank you for your contributions. I am Marek69 and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Marek.69^talk 00:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the warm welcome!—Maxximiliann talk 03:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Maxximiliann, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Maxximiliann! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Doctree (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Hello, I'm Dougweller. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. You need to stop this if you don't want to be blocked. And if you must use Latin tags (IMHO not a good idea at least the way you use them), please use more familiar ones, eg Cura te ipsum or medicus cura teipsum. Dougweller (talk) 13:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 day for attempting to harass other users. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking per this diff. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A question if I may. How is it that I incurred such a penalty when In ictu oculi at the outset identified Jeffro as a bigot, yet, received no sanction? I quote:

As for Jeffro77, the "I smell a JW!" approach is a bit different from someone noting that an argument (not person) tends to denying evolution, round earth or greenhouse gases. We generally don't need editors saying "I smell a Catholic!" "I smell a Pentecostal!" in the middle of esoteric Talk page discussions and these are borderline incursions into breach of WP:NPA "Racial, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, national, sexual, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor, or against a group of contributors. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.". And Jeffro77 is persisting here at ANI with identifying another user's religion, despite his own acknowledgement that the chronology is not exclusive to that group:
The Methodist Review - Volume 37 - Page 420 1855 "Jehoiachin fell about the year B. C. 606. At this date commences the seventy years' captivity. Judah was therefore carried to what we have called Babylon proper; for, as is apparent by the dates already given, Nineveh was now included in ..."
[] In ictu oculi (talk) 09:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

(Bracket mine.) I sincerely only wish to understand the thought process here ... —Maxximiliann talk 21:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that is odd that In ictu oculi has received no sanction for maligning me.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not all-seeing, so I do often miss problematic edits. If you feel you're being attacked, feel free to let me know (preferably with diffs backing up your concerns). Mark Arsten (talk) 23:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to In ictu oculi's comments throughout Maxximiliann's ANI.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark Arsten Can you please address the doubt I raised earlier? Also, why have you not taken action against Jeffro's bigoted statements as reported by In ictu oculi on ANI? —Maxximiliann talk 00:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I really don't understand what you're talking about. Could you rephrase your concerns? I'm not a biblical archaeologist or a scholar in a related field, so you'll have to use simple language. Also, feel free to ask for a second opinion using {{Admin help}}. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark Arsten You took swift punitive action against me for allegedly harassing Jeffro yet, you ignore similar characterizations originally made by In ictu oculi on ANI. My question is simply, why? Moreover, In ictu oculi, again on ANI, has reported multiple instances of Jeffro's pattern of bigotry against a persecuted minority, the Jehovah's Witnesses, yet no action is taken against him. Again, my question is, why? —Maxximiliann talk 03:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen any posts from Jeffro or Iio that seem to merit a block, in my view at least. But again, feel free to ask for a second opinion. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:52, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into that. —Maxximiliann talk 03:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd originally thought that Jeffro deserved a similar warning, but a more thorough review of his edits showed no insults worse than 'idiotic' which he struck through, and that was the only example. There was no language even approaching your "vitriolic ravings of a renowned bigot". Dougweller (talk) 14:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug You forgot to add, "in my opinion." —Maxximiliann talk 19:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point, per, WP:BLOCK subsection "Duration of blocks",

The purpose of blocking is prevention, not punishment.

Jeffro's personal attack should have been sanctioned by an admin. As it stands now, it appears he has carte blanche to wrongly malign Jehovah's Witnesses, a persecuted minority, mind you, and anyone who vigorously decries his biases is silenced.—Maxximiliann talk 19:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A note to both of you

It was Mercutio who first said "A plague on both your houses," - somehat applicable to the recent antics of both of you which has wasted time and disrupted Wikipedia, except that the house being plagued is that of the broader editing community not your personal houses to behave as you please. Please understand that en.wp Religion and en.wp Christianity do not need this kind of disruption - neither from someone pushing very dodgy 1850s dating for Ancient Near East history, nor from editors who detect "JW"s.

But the reason for this is that the comments of both of you to Mark Arsten (deliberately?) misquoted and misrepresented me - behind my back. Please do not misquote other 3rd party editors in your battles: I did not call Jeffro77 a "bigot", do not put words in my mouth, I said what I said about both of you at ANI, and if you want to quote other editors both of you should give diffs. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do not blame me for Maxximiliann's disruption of Wikipedia. Your time is only wasted by your actions.

I made no false representations to Mark Arsten whatsoever. If you believe otherwise, provide a diff.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Choice given

Please see my latest edit to the ANI thread on you, as I've offered you your choice of sanctions. One of them, though, will be put forward. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for being WP:NOTHERE to improve the encyclopedia--rather, your goal seems to be to push a specific, fringe viewpoint on a set of historical events. Per the discussion at WP:ANI, your presence is strictly disruptive and the consensus is for you to unable to edit articles in this topic.. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]