hi world!

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on False flag. 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. — Satori Son 20:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC) reply

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on False flag. 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Hello Shurusheero,

1. You don't cite a reliable source ( policy), or any source at all, for Gulf of Tonkin being a false flag attack.
2. The section on 9/11 you insist on adding does not cite a reliable source saying that "9/11 was a false flag attack". Instead you assemble an argument from multiple sources, running afoul of the policy on original research.

Instead of re-adding the same material, try working something out on the talk page. Wikiacc ( ¶) 20:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Hello Shurusheero,

This is an automated friendly notification to inform you that you have been reported for Violation of the Edit warring policy at the Administrators' noticeboard.
If you feel that this report has been made in error, please reply as soon as possible on the noticeboard. However, before contesting an Edit warring report, please review the respective policies to ensure you are not in violation of them. ~ NekoBot ( MeowTalk) 21:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC) (False positive? Report it!) reply

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at False flag. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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. Courcelles 00:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply

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.

Further:

Notice: In a 2008 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor working on articles concerning the September 11 attacks. Before any such sanctions are imposed, editors are to be put on notice of the decision.

• If you continue in this path of edit warring and pushing a fringe theory, a topic ban will be the next logical step. Courcelles 00:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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.

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.

Kuru (talk) 13:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 year for Flouting your topic ban.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. Courcelles 17:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC) reply

---

Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

Further, outside of the WP:AEBLOCK for one year:

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Disruptive editing and POV pushing on false flag. 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. Courcelles 17:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC) reply