Your status here

May 2009

Do not clutter this section with your remarks on its content. It is a record of what you have been warned about and blocked for, and your rebuttals are inherently out of place here.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing.
--Jerzy•t 05:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. At 15:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC) i provided you a link to Wikipedia:No personal attacks, but perhaps you were too absorbed in your inventing of PAs where none exist and launching your own to read it. You are now responsible for knowing and complying with its contents.
--Jerzy•t 06:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

--Jerzy•t 08:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have stated various requirements, until further notice, for your editing on this and/or other talk pages. You will be blocked without further notice if you fail to comply.
--Jerzy•t 17:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

--Jerzy•t 21:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

--Jerzy•t 15:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

(This block is already underway; this is a belated record of execution of the previously scheduled block.)
--Jerzy•t 15:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Behavior requirements specific to you

Make any responses or rebuttal to these points in the "Miscellaneous talk" section, avoiding cluttering this purpose-specific section.

I have copied the following from their original places below; they also appear along with your objections to them at various points in the Miscellaneous talk section.

You now know how to sign your posts, so your failure to do so is irresponsible and disruptive. Likewise, do not change a post you have previously made, nor remove it (except on your own talk page, and then not until you remove the discussion in question in accord with your chosen archiving discipline). If your previous post has become irrelevant or you wish to retract it, you may chose to apply ~~strikeout~~ markup to it; a second signature identifying you as the striker-thru and clarifying the timing is desirable.
~~Specifically, you said "Cum" means "Orgasm". Well, yeah, but. Nuance is everything.~~Basic principle: don't corrupt the record of who said what and when.
--Jerzy•t 06:05 & 08:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for my carelessness in not adequately previewing the preceding edit. (I intended to paste in a paragraph-break markup from my clipboard manager, and instead pasted also extraneous matter that relates to this user, but may be part of a much longer edit that is still in preparation.
--Jerzy•t 08:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Initially, i did not directly juxtapose the following with what is here immediately above, but it should be regarded as an amplification and clarification of the preceding "sign your posts" instructions:
If you see you've made an error, just after doing so, i expect you to be more conscientious in repairing it than i would bother most editors about. There are 3 reasons:
1. It is a good practice in general, since on a bad day it is very easy for another user to fetch the page between your error and your "immediate" repair, and (probably much later) waste time trying to figure out why they don't see what they think they previously saw. (It is a discipline i impose on myself.)
2. It is a discipline you in particular need, to help you edit responsibly: the extra burden should help you remember to edit and preview more carefully. (But as you can see above, you are not the only one who slips up, and lessening the errors is all we can hope for.)
3. You also are exceptionally careless in making your responses almost a stream of consciousness, without apparent effort to put them into an enlightening spatial relationship to what you are commenting upon; IMO this discipline may help you focus more on coherent communication and engage less in bursts of grievances like that 06:16 contrib.
I can imagine you may perceive that as paternalistic; if so, so what? -- I urge you to focus on the result rather than the label.

--Jerzy•t 08:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see i was remiss in failing to describe the specific means of dealing with such situations.
In the current edit, i have put both of the subsections of the "Your status here" section off limits to your edits, and warned you again of the prospect of being blocked. More specifically:

_ _ You'll be blocked whenever you edit in the "Your status here" section, and what you put there will be removed from there, either (at my discretion) by reverting your edit(s) or by moving it to a more suitable place.

_ _ You'll be blocked, usually for a more substantial period, whenever you revert on this page.

_ _ In the event that you edit this page, while you are blocked, in any other form than adding material at the bottom of the page, you'll be blocked not only from editing other pages, but from editing this talk page as well; subsequent blocks are likely to also include this talk page.

--Jerzy•t 17:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous talk

Zurer

Evolution of contribs whose multiple edits were unacknowledged by author

This box documents a multi-edit contrib, and is maintained by Jerzy•t. The pink portion of the box compactly permits global visualization of the stable and changed portions together.

What the hell are you talking about? There is a show called "Gomrot Holchot" where she starred at, and you can check it at IMDB if you want. Its title consists of 2 words, and even in Hebrew it doesn't sound correct, but that's how it is. Gomrot means either "finish" or "cum", and in this case it refers to "cum". Holchot basically means "go" and in some more specific cases "walk", but in this case "leaves" fits more, as it means to go (away).

And your editing was made poorly, you even managed to add capital letters in sentence-middles.

The preceding is the 05:51 & :52, 14 May 2009 version of the multi-edit user:UNW1 contrib.

What the hell are you talking about? There is a show called "Gomrot Holchot" where she starred at, and you can check it at IMDB if you want. Its title consists of 2 words, and even in Hebrew it doesn't sound correct, but that's how it is. Gomrot means either "finish" or "cum", and in this case it refers to "cum". Holchot basically means "go" and in some more specific cases "walk", but in this case "leaves" fits more, as it's basically going (away).

And your editing was made poorly, you even managed to add capital letters in sentence-middles.

The preceding is the 06:33, 14 May 2009 version of the multi-edit user:UNW1 contrib.

The following is the version extant at 09:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC), with the 5:51-:52-version-only material struck thru, and the 06:33-version-only material embolded.

The remainder of this inner box was my first try at that onerous task, at 09:44, 15 May 2009; as can be seen by comparing the preceding extracts from the various reversions, i slipped up.

What the hell are you talking about? There is a show called "Gomrot Holchot" where she starred at, and you can check it at IMDB if you want. Its title consists 2 words, and even in Hebrew it doesn't sound correct, but that's how it is. Gomrot means either "finish" or "cum", and in this case it refers to "cum". Holchot basically means "go" and in some more specific cases "walk", but in this case "leaves" fits more, as ~~it means to~~ it's go (away).

And your editing was made poorly, you even managed to add capital letters in sentence-middles.

It should have read like this 06:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC) correction:

What the hell are you talking about? There is a show called "Gomrot Holchot" where she starred at, and you can check it at IMDB if you want. Its title consists of 2 words, and even in Hebrew it doesn't sound correct, but that's how it is. Gomrot means either "finish" or "cum", and in this case it refers to "cum". Holchot basically means "go" and in some more specific cases "walk", but in this case "leaves" fits more, as ~~it means to~~ it's basically going (away).

And your editing was made poorly, you even managed to add capital letters in sentence-middles.

At the tail of a contrib appearing in the preceding pair of boxes, user:UNW1 presumably intended to respond to the following contrib of 05:46, 14 May 2009 by Jerzy•t.

That is progress, tho. What is the literal meaning of Gomrot? And that of "Holchot"? Departure? Authorization for absence? Or is it a verb?
--Jerzy•t 05:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This box documents the (multi-edit) response mentioned at the top of the preceding box, and is maintained by Jerzy•t. The pink portion of the box compactly permits global visualization of the stable and changed portions together.

A progress. No "That's progress".

The preceding is the 05:51, 14 May 2009 version of the multi-edit user:UNW1 contrib.

And it's "A progress". Not "That's progress".

The preceding is the 06:33, 14 May 2009 version of the multi-edit user:UNW1 contrib.

And it's "A progress". No't "That is progress".

The preceding is the 04:08, 15 May 2009 version of the multi-edit user:UNW1 contrib.

The following are the versions extant at 06:33, 14 May 2009 and 09:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC) respectively, each respectively with the removed 5:51-version material struck thru and the later-version-only material embolded.

And it's "A progress". Not "That's progress".

And it's "A progress". No't "That's progress".

Re edit summarized "fix refs to her to WP style"

You can't refer to her by given name alone, nor use her name in every sentence.
--Jerzy•t 05:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following 'graph is the first of four in an unsigned multi-edit contrib, made at what was at the time the bottom of the page. Copies of it have been moved to their logical place under the respective comments it addresses.

Don't start reverting my edits if you don't have a reason or idea about what you're doing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UNW1 (talk • contribs) 05:34 & :34, 14 May 2009

The following 'graph is the second of four in an unsigned multi-edit contrib, made at what was at the time the bottom of the page. It has been moved to it logical place under the comment it addresses.

First, as well for a person being able to refer to a first name alone (obviously, as the refered person is known), I did that because each time the name was reused, it was inside a new paragraph. I didn't want to keep "she", "she", "she", "Ayelet", "Zurer" like someone who wrote before me did because it doesn't look consistent and has no order. When refered inside the same paragraph, I've left a "she". —Preceding unsigned comment added by UNW1 (talk • contribs) 05:34 & :36, 14 May 2009
- Your failure to understand my reasoning is not "no reason"; i can revert anything that is unsourced, and i will revert anything that is unsourced and sounds unlikely. OK?
  --Jerzy•t 05:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re edit summarized "rem unsourced translation to unenc'c English <<..."

Could you also paraphrase for me what you think "Cum Leave" would mean?
--Jerzy•t 05:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following 'graph is the first of four in the unsigned multi-edit contrib made at what was at the time the bottom of the page. Copies of it have been moved to their logical place under the respective comments it addresses.

Don't start reverting my edits if you don't have a reason or idea about what you're doing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UNW1 (talk • contribs) 05:34 (2 edits), 14 May 2009

The following 'graphs are the third and fourth of four in the unsigned 4-edit contrib made at what was at the time the bottom of the page. They have been moved to their logical place, under the comment they address.

_ _ Second, that's how the show was called and you're not supposed to undo it if you don't know what is it about. It was almost ultimately about sex, and that's the term it has refered to.

_ _ In Hebrew, "Gomrot" could also mean "finish" (in a feminine form), but because the show was about sex, it ~~means~~ refers to the slang term "cum" (having an orgasm, again in a feminine form). —Preceding unsigned comment added by UNW1 (talk • contribs) 05:34 &:37, 14 May 2009

That is progress, tho. What is the literal meaning of Gomrot? And that of "Holchot"? Departure? Authorization for absence? Or is it a verb?
--Jerzy•t 05:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm picturing something along the lines of "The literal meanings of gomrot and holcot are "finish" and "..."; native Hebrew speakers understand gomrot in the context of the show as a reference to sexual orgasm. Are we getting close?
  --Jerzy•t 05:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - What the hell are you talking about? There is a show called "Gomrot Holchot" where she starred at, and you can check it at IMDB if you want. Its title consists of 2 words, and even in Hebrew it doesn't sound correct, but that's how it is.
    Gomrot means either "finish" or "cum", and in this case it refers to "cum". Holchot basically means "go" and in some more specific cases "walk", but in this case "leaves" fits more, as ~~it means to~~ it's basically going (away).—Preceding unsigned comment added by UNW1 (talk) 05:51 & :52, & 06:33, 14 May 2009
    - And again, what is the point of unnecessarily adding "Cum, leave"?
      And you're seriously just trying to argue about it, doubting MY own understanding of Hebrew and the circumstances of the title.
      Again, once again, I'm telling you the reasons. In Hebrew, "Ligmor" (that's the gerund. "Gomrot" is a feminine present (progressive or simple) form) means either "To finish" or "To cum".

"Cum" is obviously some sort of a slang word, but that's what Cum and Gomrot is. A word and its meaning. Because the show is about sex, their intentions for the tile are obvious. If you insistingly want that, I can put both "Finish, Leave" and "Cum, Leave" to show its "double meaning".
--UNW1 (talk) 04:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms of Jerzy and his use of language

UNW1's contribs presented in this section have in common subject matter, rather than any apparent linear development, and are thus presented here simply as a sequence.

And your editing was made poorly, you even managed to add capital letters in sentence-middles.
And it's "A progress". Not "That's progress". —Preceding unsigned comment added by UNW1 (talk) 05:51 & 06:33, 14 May 2009
Jerzy had used the word "progress, specifically, saying "That is progress, tho." UNW1 has not hinted at having noticed Jerzy's 15:36, 14 & 09:44, 15 May 2009 3-paragraph interpretation that the reference to "A progress" presumably reflects expecting the archaic rather than modern usage of the word.

Jerzy finds himself obligated to note that UNW's precise final version actually reads
And it's "A progress". No't "That is progress".

although treating that version as anything but a neglected slip of the pen seems uncharitable.
Why did you alter my message? And you're calling me an arrogant, ignorant ass? Look at yourself.
And even if it's your native language it doesn't necessarily mean that you use it better than nonnative English speakers.
I still see errors in your message.
At least use I and not "i".

That is progress, tho. What is the literal meaning of Gomrot? And that of "Holchot"? Departure? Authorization for absence? Or is it a verb?
--Jerzy•t 05:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for such a fine example of the ignorance-based arrogance that i am trying to counsel you out of. There is an English usage of "progress" as a countable, rather than mass, noun; Chesterton's A Progress from England is probably the example that i was trying to recall, but closer to my own substantial experience, i can share with you that i read a reference (in Laura Ingalls Wilder's works, i think) to a family reading what i went for years and years remembering it as The Pilgrims' Progress (obviously a reference to American history), a work whose true title and intent is actually The Pilgrim's Progress (a religious work built around an allegorical journey by one person, named "Pilgrim"). Eventually i came to understand that there is a sense, other than that implicit in The Idea of Progress...; i say "eventually" bcz it is a quite archaic usage except in certain technical contexts.
I meant exactly what i said: that i believed we had made progress toward your behaving collegially. But it was too little progress, and that fact is supported by that response of yours, whether you were mocking me by misinterpreting what i said, or just recklessly arrogant in believing you are qualified to lecture others about their native language, which is clearly not your native language.
I say all that not to mock you in return (because the purpose of discussion among editors is about the editing, not about establishing who's an ass and who's an exemplary editor). In this case, as to the editing, you're on a bad course, and overdue to catch on to how much more than usual you will have to learn and adjust to if you are to find WP a fruitful experience. Maybe you're an arrogant and ignorant ass; that's OK by me. But if you're going to recognize better your areas of ignorance, and moderate the expression of your arrogance, there is hope of your lasting at WP. And only if you do so is there such hope.
--Jerzy•t 15:36, 14 & 09:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you alter my message? And you're calling me an arrogant, ignorant ass? Look at yourself.

I wrote that it's A PROGRESS, not IT'S IS PROGRESS or what ever you altered it to.

And even if it's your native language it doesn't necessarily mean that you use it better than nonnative English speakers. I still see errors in your message.

At least use I and not "i".

And again, what is the point of unnecessarily adding "Cum, leave"? And you're seriously just trying to argue about it, doubting MY own understanding of Hebrew and the circumstances of the title.

Again, once again, I'm telling you the reasons. In Hebrew, "Ligmor" (that's the gerund. "Gomrot" is a feminine present (progressive or simple) form) means either "To finish" or "To cum". "Cum" is obviously some sort of a slang word, but that's what Cum and Gomrot is. A word and its meaning. Because the show is about sex, their intentions for the tile are obvious. If you insistingly want that, I can put both "Finish, Leave" and "Cum, Leave" to show its "double meaning". UNW1 (talk) 04:08 & :09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Where you said

I wrote that it's A PROGRESS, not IT'S IS PROGRESS or what ever you altered it to.

above, the version you resented and removed was not really remotely like "IT'S IS PROGRESS", and actually read

And it's "A progress". Not "That's is progress".

--Jerzy•t 09:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion directly in response to warnings & blocks

I warned you, with an attention sign, this text

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing.

and my sig, with timestamp 05:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC).

Subsequently, i warned you, with a halt-style hand, this boxed text

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing.

my own following remark

At 15:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC) i provided you a link to Wikipedia:No personal attacks, but perhaps you were too absorbed in your inventing of PAs where none exist and launching your own to read it. You are now responsible for knowing and complying with its contents.

and my sig, with timestamp 06:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC).

You now know how to sign your posts, so your failure to do so is irresponsible and disruptive. Likewise, do not change a post you have previously made, nor remove it (except on your own talk page, and then not until you remove the discussion in question in accord with your chosen archiving discipline). If your previous post has become irrelevant or you wish to retract it, you may chose to apply ~~strikeout~~ markup to it; a second signature identifying you as the striker-thru and clarifying the timing is desirable.
~~Specifically, you said "Cum" means "Orgasm". Well, yeah, but. Nuance is everything.~~Basic principle: don't corrupt the record of who said what and when.
--Jerzy•t 06:05 & 08:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for my carelessness in not adequately previewing the preceding edit. (I intended to paste in a paragraph-break markup from my clipboard manager, and instead pasted also extraneous matter that relates to this user, but may be part of a much longer edit that is still in preparation.
--Jerzy•t 08:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm making a fix right after if I suddenly see errors, I don't need to mark that and I don't need you to alter my posts. And who deleted records? I didn't do anything, and only someone unrelated suddenly entered my talk page and deleted a message I made (that was somehow posted through an unlogged IP without me noticing even though I was logged in a second ago).

And WHAT WARNING? What did I do and again, what is your authorization of "warning" people?

And what "no personal attacks"? Did you even see your own messages? You're the one who start calling people ignorant and complain about their knowledge of their own language, and English as well while you don't seem to have a very strict grammer. UNW1 (talk) 06:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say

only someone unrelated suddenly entered my talk page and deleted a message I made (that was somehow posted through an unlogged IP without me noticing even though I was logged in a second ago).

The edit history] of this talk page shows that no IP has ever edited it.
--Jerzy•t 08:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you see you've made an error, just after doing so, i expect you to be more conscientious in repairing it than i would bother most editors about. There are 3 reasons:

It is a good practice in general, since on a bad day it is very easy for another user to fetch the page between your error and your "immediate" repair, and (probably much later) waste time trying to figure out why they don't see what they think they previously saw. (It is a discipline i impose on myself.)
It is a discipline you in particular need, to help you edit responsibly: the extra burden should help you remember to edit and preview more carefully. (But as you can see above, you are not the only one who slips up, and lessening the errors is all we can hope for.)
You also are exceptionally careless in making your responses almost a stream of consciousness, without apparent effort to put them into an enlightening spatial relationship to what you are commenting upon; IMO this discipline may help you focus more on coherent communication and engage less in bursts of grievances like that 06:16 contrib.

I can imagine you may perceive that as paternalistic; if so, so what? -- I urge you to focus on the result rather than the label.
--Jerzy•t 08:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I notified you, with a clock image, the wording

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges]]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. No personal attacks means what it says: the matter we are discussing is not about me, but about your acts. Your perception that you've been attacked, even if it were accurate, would not justify what you've been warned against. Your denial of the community's authority to regulate your behavior is a further disruption, in itself worthy of blocking.

and my sig with the timestamp 08:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC).

Ok, maybe I'll ask you again. WHO THE HELL ARE YOU AND WHAT DO YOU WANT FROM ME?

And you seem like a shameless (or just very strange) person.

Criticising my language skills while you right like shit, editing my obviously-more-knowledgeable-than-you contributions, while just lowering the articles quality, and then even call me "ignorant" but make some fantasy story to yourself about me "personal attacking" you when your just being replied to.

But I've already seen some article that concluded that the Wikipedia editors are shown to some very arrogant and antisocial people, so I probably shouldn't be surprised about your strange actions and understanding of what's happening. UNW1 (talk) 08:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will own up to being pretty fucking strange, but that's not very important to our task together.
I hope you'll regard me as an experienced colleague and one of many thousands of editors who not only edit, but make an effort, especially with newcomers, to speak clearly about what we've learned about thing that in practice the community expects, and believe that that is crucial to WP's inefficient process of doing the things that it is capable of doing reasonably well.
I'm not going to address your criticisms of me, bcz they have nothing to do with the task we are engaged in on this talk page and with the article. (I've plenty of thots on them, but that would be a useless distraction.) It is my intention to criticize your behavior, but not your person, and i've had it on my to-do list to make clear to you that the only reason i used the term "ass" is that i wanted to urge you to stop trying to prove to me that i am an ass. I'm not sure that it was your fault that you misinterpreted that; confusion in the heat of discussion is a real risk. I've seen arrogance and ignorance from you, and i hope that i managed to avoid WP:PA in the form of tagging you as opposed to recent behaviors with those adjectives -- let alone suggesting you were an ignoramus, an arrogant ass, etc.
I'm going to be offline for a long weekend, and i hope the break will be good for us both. Let's make another try Monday-ish, OK?
--Jerzy•t 10:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't know where is it, it was a few hours ago. Maybe it was on the article and I forgot UNW1 (talk) 08:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If so, don't feel bad, that happens. But it doesn't actually appear to be relevant to what either of us wants to discuss, just a confusing glitch.
--Jerzy•t 09:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion started subsequent to initial warning

When I say "literal", it doesn't mean that "Gomrot" is only "finish".

It's like "Cum".

I guess that you can also think about it as "Finish, leave" because it fits together, but the other meaning isn't much of a hidden meaning. Because of its extensive references to sex, it can easily be "Cum, leave" (The added the comma is to make it look more correct)

And what disruptive editing? Are you even an editor? Because you doesn't seem to me like someone who knows how to write an article, and not to mention moderating it. The one who's vandalising is you.

If you want to see another example so hard, just enter the Tom Hanks article. You could easily see that "Hanks" is being used all over the article, and they don't keep doing "he, he, he, he".

When you start another paragraph you need to make a new reference name, you don't use it once and expect the whole article to be "she". UNW1 (talk) 06:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My friend, by referring to Special:Contributions/UNW1, i'm able to tell that you are an editor (since 3:20 UTC). You can become a civil, and competent, one, and also understand what constitutes being an editor, and that all well-behaved editors are moderators. The first step is by treating other editors as colleagues, and reducing the likelihood of annoying your colleagues by being stubborn about your intuitions and about style elements that are fine elsewhere but for more reasons than you can imagine may not be here.
As to "cum", it has three meanings, none of which is suitable with the sytnax you chose. There may or not be a wording that will make it useful here, but you are nowhere near finding it. There is also the problem of verification; if you look at the editing history of the article, you will see my edit summary when i removed that. It is especially difficult and important in this case because of the crudeness -- do you know its etymology? -- and consequent vandalistic appeal of "cum" in the orgasm sense, and because of the barriers that not only language, but also alphabet and direction of reading, set for nearly all editors attempting to verify your assertions. I will remove it, and keep you from replacing it if necessary, until we can verify that it is not an elaborate bit of vandalism on your part, even tho i think the odds are high that your intent (however clumsy and rude) is good, and that you have your hands on info that we will want to reflect in some appropriate fashion.
The most valuable reading for you, in the meantime, may be Manual of Style, tho i also recommend all the newcomer-oriented material linked via the Main Page. Just to mention a instance of neutral significance, citing them reminds me that both of those links are to pages that are on their face exceptions to our own odd policy at WP:NC, which says we don't raise to upper case any words (except the first) that appear in page or section titles! There's a good reason for it, but it will be obvious to you that it would be ridiculous to expect new editors to anticipate it. That oddity should be a cautionary tale for you (as should the apparent difference you can apparently perceive between what i think of as the "[the subject of a bio is] Not Your Buddy" rule) to listen to the locals before being so dogmatic in the future.
--Jerzy•t 07:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that "editor" is some Wikipedia role, but anyway, even if its just the people editing articles, I'm not an "editor" as I only wanted to put some order and fixes in the article after I've read it and saw how clumsy it was.

And "Cum" means "Orgasm". I don't get what's so hard for you to understand. But I must note that I've already seen you making several consecutive writing errors, so I don't think that you're the one who's supposed to insistingly argue and revert my editings when I'm simply translating exactly what the phrase is, or writing in a way which is obviously more organized, and can be seen in other articles as well.

And I didn't understand what were you talking about with that upper case thing. UNW1 (talk) 07:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

State of this talk page

I've made considerable progress toward making this page comprehensible; the need is illustrated by the fact that after assiduous inspection the page history, i am finally am certain that i did not write

And again, what is the point of unnecessarily adding "Cum, leave"?

in spite of my inability to conceive what could have possessed you to do so!
--Jerzy•t 06:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dialogue

You're really starting to get on my nerves.

Even though that your impaired language skills prevent you from explaining your state and behaviour, I guess that you're a Wikipedia moderator if you gave me a warning?

And who said you asked "What is the point?" What the hell do you want? As far as I remember, that's what I've been asking you as you insistingly ruined my contributions saying that I want to maliciously add "Cum, Leave", which makes no sense.

Now, I'll say it again. WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU WANT FROM MY TALK PAGE? I DIDN'T WRITE A SINGLE REPLY TO YOU IN DAYS, JUST F-U-C-K-I-N-G LEAVE IT. UNW1 (talk) 15:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly "What we have here is a Failure to Communicate. If you are familiar with the film whose article i linked that sentence to, it should make you think about the danger of stubbornness in the face of such failures -- especially for the less powerful party. What i want from your talk page is effective communication with you. The most urgent of the things i want to communicate to you is that you have two choices:

become a cooperative to colleague to the existing editors of English WP, or
use your account at most for reading, i.e., do no editing

If that is unclear, try asking a civil question about it, while avoiding distracting us by your raising less urgent matters.

In the meantime, i'll at least briefly delay putting your new block into effect, in case that furthers communication.
(As a pair of sort of place-holders, i'll mention that i'm putting off trying to accomplish clarification of

why your uttering
And again, what is the point of unnecessarily adding "Cum, leave"?

is so confusing, and
why my "state and behaviour", and my exact WP status, are irrelevant to this discussion.)

--Jerzy•t 15:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now I get your problem. You really don't understand what you're being told, so when you call someone an "ignorant ass" you think that your own self was just mocked.

First, did I call it confusing? No. I said that you just mentioned it for some reason with no relation to the way it was told or the situation, and I said that it was a reply to you, saying that vandalizing, as you accused me when reverting my contributions, by writing "Cum, Leave" makes no sense.

And your "WP status" is relevant as I want to know who the hell are you, and what do you want and think when you keep submitting blocks to my user, as well for keeping reverting MY talk page when I'm trying to get it clear. I don't need this "discussion" and I wasn't talking to you.

And I'm not an "editor", all I did was improving that article I've seen, and that's why you're even more annoying and less helpful. UNW1 (talk) 16:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're an editor, bcz you've used that tab labeled edit, made a change, and saved it; repeatedly, in fact. If you were an acceptable editor, you'd have done more to understand how things are done on :en:WP, as i've urged you to do, and make fewer of these clueless mistakes.
You've got me wondering whether you're engaged in an elaborate put on: in fact, i wondered, for a moment, if you could be a particular former editor who's been banned for about 3 years, but that's implausible. In any case, you've had almost the full course of due diligence; my interest and patience are ebbing, and in the absence of one abuse-free message during one of the windows between your blocks (at the least), you'll be a banned former editor yourself within a few weeks.
--Jerzy•t 18:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

STRAAAAAAAAAAAAANGE. STRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANGE PERSON.

THAT'S WHAT YOU ARE.

I can give you the "Stupid" term as well as you really seem incapable, but you're still a VERY strange person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.172.153.244 (talk) 21:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Curiouser and curiouser!" For all i know, you will find this strange as well:
In about 2 hours you'll have an opportunity to edit legitimately again for a while. (Your next block, BTW, unless forestalled by you, will be for evasion of previous blocks via use of IP access.) I suggest you visit WP:DR, and see if you can find a path out of losing your ability to do anything on WP except reading, and out of potentially losing the use of your [info retroactively removed here by Jerzy] account(s) anywhere on the Internet for any purpose. (WP will not pursue legal action against you, but may request assistance from the [similarly] staff, and/or refuse all IP traffic from all addresses close to those you have ever used, which may provoke complaints to [similarly] -- in effect against you -- from their other WP IP users.)
I had hoped to find a suitable Dispute Resolution channel where i could initiate a process, but my conclusion is that it would in theory, and very possibly in practice, have to be you who makes that effort. My best wishes and hopes go with you, since "your race is almost run", even if you can't see it.
--Jerzy•t 04:53 & 16:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's it. I'm done talking to you.
  You have serious problems, either with understanding human language or social communication, and it's funny that you even threaten my internet connection.
  Did anyone even allow you to publish my internet provider in this talk page, or that your impudence has no limits?
  —Preceding unsigned comment added by UNW1 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 21 May 2009
  - It was you who made your provider info accessible, and anyone with the interest and an elementary awareness of 'Net structure could deduce what i deduced. And it seemed important that you realize how clueless your apparent sense of omnipotence and invulnerability is. I've removed the info you complained about from the current revision of this talk page, since you've objected -- silly tho that objection is. My doing more about it would be equally silly.
    In about 24 hours, you will be blocked for at least a week, unless there is a substantial change.
    You may not have done the due diligence that would tell you that you are violating WP policy when you use another account, or no registered account at all, to edit while blocked. However, you may profit from reading the results of a search on "right to disappear", searching in the "Wikipedia:" namespace, and perhaps in various "...talk:" namespaces.
    --Jerzy•t 17:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know that the IP already gets posted, but no-one asked you to actually search about it and post its info RIGHT HERE.

And while you may edited it in this revision, like everything you did to my own edits - which seem to always be for your disagreement, it's revertable in the page's history.

I'd like it to be deleted, not disparagingly overwritten. UNW1 (talk) 20:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]