User talk:Prince Paul of Yugoslavia

Bot

Sorry, I just replaced a regexp with \b, but apparently it doesn't seem to work as expected. That's why it reverted you. Voice-of-All 04:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem ;) --Prince Paul of Yugoslavia (talk) 04:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mock execution

Can you explain why you changed the above article to all male references? As I understand it, this can be done to either men or women. Thus, it was grammatically correct in its previous form. KnightLago (talk) 04:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry man, in my revert I hit 'enter' before typing my edit summary. 'They' is a plural, which means 'subject' and 'victim' would need to be changed to their plural forms. --Prince Paul of Yugoslavia (talk) 04:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at it again, you are absolutely right. Thanks. KnightLago (talk) 04:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CE/BCE changes to World population

Your edit summaries are not clear. Your initial change claimed to be for "Continuity throughout the article" and yet you had altered nearly all to AD/BC entries. That is NOT continuity as the majority of entries were already CE/BCE. You also just swapped CE to AD without placing the "AD" before the year (which is the usual style). I reverted your change and posted Talk page on why. Please don't revert until you read the talk page. Ttiotsw (talk) 09:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burma national cricket team

I appreciate current consensus is to name the country as Burma, however, I think an exception needs to be made for the cricket team. The official name of the team is Myanmar, they play all matches at all levels as Myanmar (though they did play in the past as Burma), are sanctioned by the Myanmar Cricket Federation and they are referred to Myanmar in all official records of the International Cricket Council and Asian Cricket Council. Andrew nixon (talk) 13:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burma Name Change

I just wanted to thank you for your contributions to the debate on the naming of Burma/Myanmar. After watching and contributing to the debate, I shared your frustration when the Burma page was unilaterally renamed to "Myanmar."Angstriddenyouth (talk) 15:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

White people

Yes I know you were making a point. But the behaviour guideline explicitly states that one should not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, and as such you were in breach of this guideline, it makes it even less of an excuse that you knew that you were deliberately breaching a behaviour guideline. Therefore your actions can legitimately be described as trolling. If you are unable to engage constructively on the talk page and feel the need to be disruptive and provocative then it seems to me that you are not assuming good faith or willing to spend time to reach a consensus on the talk page. Wikipedia is not a place to have little tantrums when people disagree with you (and you certainly will not get what you want by behaving this way), one needs to be measured, thoughtful and mature in one's interactions with others and to take disagreements to the talk page. Alun (talk) 05:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings

May 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Burma. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Reverting an edit by an IP which restored the redirect on this article and labelling it as 'trolling' is not assuming good faith, particularly since it is evident the basis for your revert was simply that you disagree with the decision. Coldmachine^Talk 07:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Prince Paul of Yugoslavia (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been blocked as a Sockpuppet of someone with whom I have never even had contact let alone know. And where is the checkuser I am meant to refer to for evidence?

Decline reason:

Per comment from Jayjg below. — Daniel Case (talk) 03:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This block is absolute bollocks. A puppet of Confederate till Death? I'm not even a flaming American! If you all must know I am from New Zealand, land of the fucking long white cloud. And as for my photo, SLR, Prince Paul was a real person and that really was he! --Prince Paul of Yugoslavia (talk) 01:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checking with blocking admin. Daniel Case (talk) 03:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The CU evidence is pretty conclusive. Your previous accounts are, unsurprisingly, from the same country as your most recent account. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]