User talk:Aimperator

Yardley of London

Would you be so kind as to visit the discussion at Talk:Yardley of London to justify the changes you are trying to make to its associated aricle? —Psychonaut (talk) 10:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for working to improve the site with your edits to Yardley of Longon here and here, as we really appreciate your participation. However, the edit had to be reverted, because Wikipedia cannot accept unsourced material or original research. This includes material lacking cited sources, or obtained through personal knowledge or unpublished synthesis of previously published material. Wikipedia requires that the material in its articles be accompanied by reliable, verifiable (usually secondary) sources explicitly cited in the text in the form of an inline citation, which you can learn to make here. If you ever have any other questions about editing, or need help regarding the site's policies, just let me know by leaving a message for me in a new section at the bottom of my talk page. Thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 03:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The sources of my information are direct from the company through their website, and faebook pages containing informtion about the company. I do not need to impart incorrect and ridiculous claims, as some other people do. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aimperator (talk • contribs) 04:10, 2 April 2013‎

Your addition to Yardley of London has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Psychonaut (talk) 06:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

It does not matter if your information comes from the company or its Faceboook page. Wikipedia requires that material added to its articles be accompanied by citations of those sources, as per the policies and described and linked to in the above message. If you find other editors adding material that is incorrect, you are more than welcome to address that matter with the rest of the editing community here, but it does not give you license to add uncited information.

As for the accusation in your email to me, in which you stated: "I seem to recall you putting in this article a company based in Long Island New York is older than Yardley, when the fact is Yardley was founded years before Long Island even existed! This is the kind of reliable information you are imparting and Wikipedia is allowing you to post? Also, I used English Blazer starting back in the 1960s here in the United States. It was on the market years before you are claiming it was launched.", I have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about, as I have never added any such information to that article, nor made any "claim", which a look through the article's edit history will show. But if you can find the edit in question in which I added what you're claiming that I did, then please provide the Diff in question, and we can discuss the material you're talking about. Otherwise, please refrain from making unsubstantiated accusations against other editors, since it is not in the spirit of Wikipedia's Civility policy, including those that advise us to Assume Good Faith and refrain from personal attacks. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Please stop adding uncited material to articles, as you did with this edit to Yardley of London, as this violates Wikipedia's Verifiability policy. As I explained to you above a year ago, Wikipedia requires that the material in its articles be accompanied by reliable, verifiable (usually secondary) sources explicitly cited in the text in the form of an inline citation, which you can learn to make here. Yardley's website is a primary source, not a secondary one. When you can supply such a source, a citation of it goes in the article, and not your edit summary.

If you ever have any other questions about editing, or need help regarding the site's policies, just let me know by leaving a message for me in a new section at the bottom of my talk page. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Please stop putting incorrect information in this article. According to both the official UK website, and the Yardley London South Africa Facebook page, Jonathan Yardley founded the company in 1620, unfortunately the documentation for this was lost in the great fire of London in 1666. This information shows Yardley is older than anyone else. If you don't know what you're doing, stay out of it. Thank you. Aimperator (talk) April 7, 2014 (UTC)

Please provide a citation to a reliable, independent source to support your claim. If the only source for the 1620 founding is the company itself, then the claim can be mentioned in the article, but should be qualified as being the company's own claim rather than something which has been verified by disinterested third parties. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

This is the url for the company's Facebook page,https://www.facebook.com/yardleylondon On this page, directly under the large logo that appears on the left side of the page, you will see the word "about". If you click on that, it will give you company info, and the date the company was founded, which they list as 1620. Again, this is coming from the company, and not some disinterested third party. I use Wikipedia quite a bit, and totally agree with you the information presented needs to be accurate. I have no reason, or wish to add information to an article that is not correct, or something I simply made up. Thank you. Aimperator (talk) 14:28, April 7, 2014

Your recent editing history at Yardley of London 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. Betty Logan (talk) 16:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I provided proof that the information I provided is correct according to the company. Here is the url that gives this information coming from the company, https://www.facebook.com/yardleylondon/info On the page they refer to for their information about the date of the founding of the company it says, "Yardley London is famous as a purveyor of luxury fragrances and soaps. But did you know that the much-storied House of Yardley was born in England in the mid-seventeenth century, during the reign of King Charles 1?An entrepreneurial young man named Jonathan Yardley obtained a royal warrant for the provision of all the soap to City of London. The means by which this warrant was obtained are lost to history, however we might suppose it involved payment to the monarch of a sizeable, and no doubt welcome, sum. This first incarnation of Yardley was lost, as was so much of the old city, in the Great Fire of London of 1666; save for one detail - that lavender should be used to perfume the soaps."

They talk about the great fire of London in 1666, so obviously, the company was founded prior to 1770! You have the information right their to contradict what you have in the article now. Where do you get off allowing someone to keep putting information this is obviously NOT correct? If that is the case, obviously the information on Wikipedia is not accurate. Aimperator (talk) 20:18, April 9, 2014

One more time: Information in Wikipedia needs to be supported by citations of reliable secondary sources, and the citations have to be in the article. The company's Facebook page is a primary source, not a secondary source, and Facebook itself is not reliable as a source. What part of this are you not getting?

You don't come onto someone else's property in the brick and mortar world and tell those maintaining that property that they don't know what they're doing, or that they should "stay out of it", so why would you do so on the Internet? Like it or not, this site has policies and guidelines to be followed, and if you want to edit here, you have to follow them. If you perceive a problem with an article, then you fix them in a manner that is consistent with those policies, and if necessary, discuss the matter with others. You don't violate the site's rules by edit warring, by constantly adding unsourced material, by engaging in "IDHT"-type behavior when they try to explain the site's policies to you, or by presuming authority that you don't have to tell them to "stay out" of editing an article. You're the new one to Wikipedia, and you're the one who needs to learn the follow the site's guidelines. If you can't do this, then it is you who needs to find another Web hobby and not the rest of the editing community here, who isn't going to walk on eggshells for a serial policy violator who thinks that they own the site.

And please sign your talk page posts. It makes it easier to discern whose messages are whose. Nightscream (talk) 19:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The UK website you are getting your information from talks about Yardley being in existence PRIOR to the great fire of 1666. Obviously, and should be obvious to even you, that would mean the company was founded prior to 1770. What part of that aren't you getting? That would be sourced material I'm getting my information from, or is that too much for your mind to comprehend? I think it must be. You are supposed to be putting correct information on this site, not what you want to be correct, how obvious does it have to be to you? Its more than obvious you don't research thoroughly enough, and are performing a disservice to anyone employing this site. You should refrain from making any edits to articles. AIMPERATOR

I'm not "getting information" from any site, for the simple reason that I haven't added any information to the article regarding the company's history. The only who keeps doing so is you. I've made nearly 100,000 edits since 2005, whereas you've made 44 edits since 2012. Do you honestly think you have any credibility to standing to come onto this site and tell others what to do?

Longtime editors on this site are not going to stop editing it simply because someone who thinks the rules don't apply to him declare that they do so. Again, if you visit other people's property, you follow their rules, or your leave. You don't tell them to do so. That isn't how it works, and it's the height of arrogance for you to act otherwise. If you want to correct information in the article then do so according to the site's policies. That means citing your sources, and discussing matters of conflict with other editors, and not by engaging in edit warring, which is what you're doing, and which is a blockable offense. Continue to add uncited information to the article, and you will be blocked from editing. Nightscream (talk) 04:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

It's too bad your ego got bruised, but its not my fault you cannot comprehend the information you are citing. It says the company was founded during the reign of Charles the 1st, who reigned from 1625 until 1649, so obviously Jonathan Yardley founded the company at least prior to 1649, tell me what company is older than that,and I'll drop the entire subject. If you cannot, than admit Yardley is the oldest and lets have a truce. It was in 1770, that William Yardley founded the House of Yardley. If you cannot put correct information you should not be editing any articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.57.19.212 (talk) 06:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The issue has been raised at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Aimperator reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: ). You clearly refuse to abide by Wikipedia's policies so with some reluctance I've had to initiate disciplinary procedures against you. Betty Logan (talk) 08:37, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The rules should apply to everyone, and the first rule should be not to allow someone to put incorrect information into an article, when their own source of information is contradicting what they are saying. It is very curious that on this "talk" page, none of you want to address the issues I have raised regarding that. I will continue to edit that page or any page I choose to, and if you do not cease harassing me, I'll discontinue my financial support of Wikipedia, and tell several other people I know who also do, how I am being treated and they will also discontinue theirs. They know people who also support this site financially, so in the end you will have several sources of financial support dry up. Aimperator (talk) 19:30, April 20, 2014

You don't get to unilaterally determine what the "first rule should be". Wikipedia is a collaborative project, which means the community decides together what the core policies are, and the relevant core policy regarding content is verifiability, and not truth, since Wikipedia is a tertiary source of information, and not a primary source of information, and therefore cannot make any claims to what is "correct" or "incorrect". It is for this reason that the rants in which you engage ad nauseam about the correctness or incorrectness of the information are irrelevant. Material in its articles must be supported by a citation of a reliable, secondary source. Material is not going to be included or excluded on the basis of what one arrogant newbie editor who edit wars and tries to order around the entire community because, in his mind, "I know I'm right." Believing you're right doesn't entitle you to go onto someone else's property and violate the rules, and your anemic financial threats don't change that. That's not ego-bruising, that's just reality. The same reality that you would no doubt be following in the brick-and-mortar world. Nightscream (talk) 20:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

You are a total idiot. The first priority is the core policies, and not the truth, what kind of an idiotic statement is that? I am citing your own source of information in putting additional information into the article regarding the founding of the company. The problem is you are too stupid, and you have too big an ago to read the entire source of information, or accept the fact that you are wrong and to let the correct information stand. If the community "together" can't see that, then it's obvious they are incapable of making responsible decisions. It is rectums like you, that create unreliable sources of information with your stupidity and your lack of thoroughness.

Your continuation of your edit-warring is making your participation on this project untenable. I have opened a discussion about it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Aimperator reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: ). Betty Logan (talk) 06:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

It's the type of statement an intelligent person would understand if they made a good faith effort to try to understand the policies of the community they've joined, instead of narcissistically and self-righteously pretending that their belief in the way things "should be" entitles them to act as if they own someone else's property. Your most recent edit, in addition to adding uncited information to the article, added an entire swath of argumentation on the issue of the company's founding date, and the second-person pronoun "we", which is entirely inappropriate in the formal tone of an encyclopedia written in the third-person. This, along with your violation of the site's Civility policy with your inflammatory comments above, will only make things worse for you. Simply put, your argumentations and beliefs are not going to be reflected in the article, unless you can supply citations of reliable secondary sources to go with them, period. Nightscream (talk) 21:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

You are an idiot. All you are doing is whining because you are offended that someone has the intelligence to read the source of information you are using and put the correct information in the article, transforming it into a reliable source of information. All of this proves that Wikipedia is not reliable, and allows idiots like you to add things to it that are totally incorrect. I feel kind of sorry for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.57.19.212 (talk) 13:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

As you've continued your edit warring after your last two blocks I've raised the issue at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. —Psychonaut (talk) 06:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay. The information I'm posting is still correct, and you people are just too dense to allow it to remain. Check your own sources!

Neither of the two sources that were in the article (nor the additional two I added since) state that Yardley is the "oldest" cosmetics company, nor do they regard the company's true founding date as anything other than 1770. They do mention that some incarnation of the company existed prior to then, but knowledge of it was lost, and the modern incarnation is considered to have been founded in 1770, which is why its products, such as Yardley soaps, say "Founded in 1770" on its labels. The article mentions the earlier incarnation, but the official year of founding is 1770, and the only one of the four sources now cited in the article that says anything about the company's comparative age calls it "one of the oldest". Nightscream (talk) 06:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The Yardley family can trace its roots back to the 14th century. "Some incarnation" of the company was Jonathan Yardley, making soaps under the name of Yardley for the City of London, during the reign of Charles the I, which means Yardley commenced operations at that time. I've told you based on information found here on Wikipedia the years Charles the I was on the throne. This information is on the official U.K. Yardley site. Because of truth in advertising laws, Yardley cannot make this claim in their advertising because the information was lost during the great fire of London in 1666, so the official date of the founding was 1770. However, the dates of Charles' reign and of the fire where the company records were lost obviously makes it clear Yardley existed well prior to 1770. You are now admitting that "some incarnation" of the company existed then, which makes Yardley much older than 1770, and if you were as concerned about providing accurate information as you claim to be, you would be putting this in the article. Aimperator (talk) 06:17, May 7, 2014‎

First, please sign your messages. Doing so allows all participants in discussion to discern, at a glance, whose messages are whose. You can do this by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of them, which also automatically time stamps them.

Regarding the article content, material that goes to a topic's notability must be supported by a citation of a secondary source, and not the topic's own website, which is a primary source.

More importantly, it does not matter when Charles reigned, or whether there was a prior incarnation of the company. If the official date of founding of the modern incarnation of the company is 1770, and that is the date that will be used for any claims made in the article. Now if the company contended that it was the oldest such company, then that would raise question that would make discussion of that point necessary. But since Yardley's website does not make any point about whether it's the oldest or one of the oldest, the point is moot. Nightscream (talk) 11:59, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

This website, which lists all cosmetic companies http://perfumesociety.org/discover-perfume/perfume-houses/yardley/ showing what I am saying regarding the date of the founding of Yardley is correct, and the current information on the page is wrong. You will notice they refer to the "formal" founding of the company as 1770, but show that is not the actual founding date of the company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aimperator (talk • contribs)

Are you seriously suggesting that website is a reliable source?? the panda ₯’ 23:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

It's certainly reliable. It also correlates with the information found on the Yardley UK website that also talks about Yardley manufacturing soaps during the reign of Charles the I, meaning the company was obviously in existence then, which was well before 1770. What it does do is contradict the information you have in that article now. I think what it boils down to is your egos get in the way, and rather than putting accurate information, you don't like admitting you are incorrect, and will allow the incorrect information to stand, rather then do a service to your users by correcting the existing information, and when someone tries to like I did, you stop them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aimperator (talk • contribs)

No, that's nowhere close to reliable. I'm not even involved in the article, so why would my "ego" be involved? I'm evaluating your "source" as an independent 3rd party When you joined this PRIVATE website, you agreed to the rules. WP:EW is one of them. You're not ever permitted to edit-war even if you're RIGHT. Nobody's ego is involved - except yours, so far. So, because you insisted on breaking a rule you agreed to, we were FORCED to stop you - it was your choice, not ours the panda ₯’ 00:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

No, its all about your inflated ego. That website is a reliable one that provides information on not only the perfumes major companies market, but also information on the company itself. They give all the information. They don't pick and choose like you do, or discard information because it is correct, but you didn't find it first, or your mind cannot comprehend it. Anyone who actually reads the UK site, could see your information is not total factual. I feel sorry for you that you are in this narrow groove. Aimperator (talk) 20:49, May 14, 2014

So, nice personal attack ... and nice attempt to discuss the reliability of the source. I see you chose to not discuss the rule you clearly broke - no comment there, or are you stuck in some narrow groove? the panda ₯’ 09:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

You should not be allowing your rules to stand in the way of providing accurate information in the articles. You should also not be allowing your egos and the fear of being shown you are wrong, to guide you in picking and choosing what information you will and will not put in an article, when the information on both of the websites I pointed out clearly shows the company is older than 1770.Clearly your credibility leaves quite a bit to be desired. This is not a personal attack on anyone, its simply stating some cold, hard facts that I don't think you have the courage to face. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.57.19.212 (talk) 09:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, saying that people's egos are interfering with their editing is a personal attack. Verifiability is a requirement, and as noted by a third party neutral editor, the source you're using is not acceptable. No matter what, edit-warring has specific exclusions - and this (nor IAR) is one of them - it's a bright-line rule. Your continued edit-warring and continued attempts to use an unacceptable source mean YOU have zero credibility. Your first warnings and first block were supposed to be the catalyst for you to change - and you're not. Your next block for edit-warring will be permanent, I'm afraid, because you simply refused to abide by the rules you agreed to the panda ₯’ 20:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

"[The Perfume Society page] what I am saying regarding the date of the founding of Yardley is correct, and the current information on the page is wrong. You will notice they refer to the "formal" founding of the company as 1770, but show that is not the actual founding date of the company."

The Perfume Society page does not say anything about the information in the Wikipedia article being "wrong", nor does it say anything about 1770 being "not the actual founding date". In fact, it merely says that 1770 was when it had its formal roots, but that an incarnation of the company existed prior to that, but that the Great Fire of London destroyed records of that incarnation, which is precisely what the Wikipedia article states. So what exactly is in the Wikipedia article that's wrong? What's in the article that contradicts the PS page?

"It's certainly reliable. It also correlates with the information found on the Yardley UK website..."

How did you gauge its reliability?

"No, its all about your inflated ego."

Argumentum ad hominem. That this conflict is derived from any sort of bias on our part is an assumption on your part, and not a conclusion that you've illustrated through evidence or reasoning that excludes other explanations. The truth is, you do not know that anyone has expressed their viewpoints because of their "egos"; you are simply glomming onto the scenario that allows you self-justification, and in so doing, violating Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith. In order to conclude that it's about our egos, and express this as a valid accusation, you would have first exclude other, less nefarious explanations, like the possibility that experienced editors here understand how to properly apply the policies and guidelines that were designed by the Wikipedia editing community to not only ensure the very accuracy that you bloviate about, but to provide for civil collaboration, and unilateral control of an article by one editor who thinks accuracy should be judged on the basis of his say-so.

"You should not be allowing your rules to stand in the way of providing accurate information in the articles."

They don't. Accuracy is not judged by one lone editor who violates the site's rules and attacks those who disagree with him, and deludes himself into thinking that his arbitrary accusations are "cold, hard facts". It's judged by the community as a whole, when properly applying the site's policies and guidelines. Nightscream (talk) 02:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Yardley of London possesses six Royal Warrants. If you go to their official UK website and click on Royal Warrants, they are all listed there. Here again, is another example of your not doing your job, and providing accurate information.

Hello Dolly

I have started a discussion at Talk:Hello, Dolly! (film)#Disputed box office section to discuss your edits at Hello, Dolly! (film). You are clearly misunderstanding the data so I have explained the figures in detail for you. I would appreciate it if you participated in the discussion rather than restoring erroneous infomation to the article. If there is anything else you don't understand/want me to explain, feel free to ask. Betty Logan (talk) 08:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Hello, I'm Mark Arsten. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Hello, Dolly! (film), with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:53, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

It was removed because it is not correct information. this is being reserched through the studio who produced and released Hello, Dolly! and until the research is complete, this incorrect information shoulod not be allowed to remain in the article. Thi film did not lose money.

• This issue has been discussed at Talk:Hello, Dolly! (film), and the consensus is to use the version of the text that includes sources: Talk:Hello, Dolly! (film)#Survey. The other editors who offered third opinions at the discussion concurred that this version complies with Wikipedia's policies of WP:Verifiability. Betty Logan (talk) 11:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

If they want to allow information some idiot pulls out of her rectum, than so be it.

April 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of two days for edit warring, as you did at Yardley of London. 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.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  User:Callanecc (talk) 14:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for Edit warring and incivility. 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.  King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at Yardley of London. 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.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on User talk:Aimperator. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. TheMesquito^buzz 07:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

What damages the community and deters users are people like you who allow people with over inflated egos to refuse to put accurate information into the articles they write, and stop others from doing so, since they consider these articles as their personal property.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think they should be listening to my side of the story too, which no one seems to be interested in doing. I don't know what kind of a "community" you have going here, but it doesn't sound very fair and impartial to me.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of three months for edit warring on Yardley of London. You've had three edit warring blocks in late April for this particular article and indeed for the same particular change which you have now reinstated yet again, showing a long-term and extreme determination to get a promotional and non-consensus change into the article. (It's been going on since September 2012, even though the text was slightly different then.) In consideration of the length of previous blocks, and of the fact that you do very little else on Wikipedia than push for having the first sentence of the article read "Yardley of London is the oldest cosmetics, perfume and toiletry company in the world", I have given you a long block. The next one will most likely be indefinite. 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.  Bishonen | talk 16:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing your talkpage due to abuse of the unblock process, continuing to attack editors, or other disruptive reasons. You may still contest any current block by using the unblock ticket request system, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. the panda ₯’ 08:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC)