Marelstrom

Please review policies

Please review WP:Neutrality as well as WP:Verifiability and WP:Original Research particularly in regard to controversy. Neutrality is not a magical veto of anything you don't like, it means all views that can be verified are presented. What you are doing on the Ganas page is deleting properly referenced material and replacing it with non-referenced incidental details from Ganas own literature. Regardless of your intentions it is not more neutral and it doesn't belong on WP. I understand that Ganas residents think they know the truth and that justifies their inclusion of same but if it hasn't been reported by independent sources it's got to go. So even if you "know" so-and-so was a founder if there is no reference (besides Ganas) for that fact then it's not verifiable and not welcome on WP. It is not necessary to mention all founders as Gordon is the only one with a notable background. Likewise the repetitive info on stores in the summary, does not belong there. Please also see WP:Lead for discussion on what belongs in summary. If you continue to vandalize this page we will have ourselves an edit war which will require outside intervention, so please familiarize yourself with WP writing standards instead, and consider recusing yourself altogether from this article as you are clearly a Ganas resident and intrinsically biased. Eroberer (talk) 12:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

You are very elaborate with words. [NOTICE BOARD] --Marelstrom (talk) 13:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Requirement

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Eroberer (talk) 02:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

May 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ganas. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

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. 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 a version 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 you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Your editing privileges have been indefinitely suspended

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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 will note that WP:OUTING notes that it is the attempt to disclose another editors RL identity that is the violation, regardless of whether it was accurate or not - although as an editor of some experience here it should be assumed that you are aware of policy in this and other areas. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

{{unblock|reason=How can I protect an article from a malicious user, without mentioning the user? If you would like I will focus on content rather than the user, but I can't, because my account is blocked. Marelstrom (talk) 20:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)}