User talk:[email protected]
You have already violated the three revert rule, which triggers an automatic ban, but I see nobody has warned you about this policy. You have now been warned: any further reversion and you are blocked. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 
AfD? 17:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I am removing some of the editorialising from the version as posted by others, but there is no doubt that your version is not neutral, failing to note certian key facts which are apparently referenced from reliable sources. You are also advised that making legal threats is also forbidden, again with a penalty of blocking from editing.
Since I have no reason to doubt your knowledge and good faith, I now encourage you to discuss this at Talk:Tom Rubython. If you can prove the allegations wrong, or provide reliable data with reputable sources for further material, I encourage you to do so. This can then be worked into the article. I strongly urge you not to edit the article yourself, this is considered a bad idea. Nobody is interested in the 'pedia being used as a vehicle for attack, but neither is it a hagiography. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 17:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I've blocked you for a week for two reasons - you've broken the three revert rule (which normally has a 24 hour block on first offence) and you've made legal threats. It's the making of legal threats that has lengthened your ban. You may want to look at the following Wikipedia policies:
Secretlondon 17:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Your block has been reduced and will expire at 17:50 GMT today. Secretlondon 14:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Edit summaries[edit]
