" November 2007 (UTC) 

 == Twinkle == 

 I don't really get how to install it.   

 ==Congratulations== 
 I think you are the first person to ever  the Main Page. I know someone who accidentally moved it to the name of some small town in New Zealand, and it's been accidentally deleted before. 

 You might like to fix your warning at  (who seems to be one of our longest-standing contributors).-  

 == User Raoulduke47 == 

 This user is causing trouble in the Battle of Gazala article. He constantly reverts my edits, despite the fact that my information is sourced. He does not seem to be troubled by the fact that his actions are vandalism - pointing me as one instead. He has done this several times and did so yet again. Regards,   

 :I have never called this user a vandal. On the contrary, it's him who persistently refers to my edits as vandalism, which, in the case of a content dispute such as this comes pretty close to being a personal attack. 

 :In fact, this is a disagreement over the use of the word ""decisive"". This word can have two meanings: either ""having the power or quality of deciding"" or ""Beyond doubt; unmistakable"". I won't bore you with the details, but it is the first meaning that is relevant here. Kurt Leyman's source tends towards the second meaning, given the turn of phrase he uses. So it's not a question of deleting ""sourced information"", it 's a question of removing tendentious claims. I get the impression that Kurt Leyman is taking advantage of the confusion to further his pro-German POV, but even assuming good faith(dificult at this point, but i do my best), it seems that he is mistaken. Unfortunately, he has stubbornly refused to discuss this issue on the talk page, so it has proved impossible to dispell the confusion. He seems content make an ambiguous statement, whack on an uncheckable source (in Finnish...no comment) and then to shout: ""this is the truth, anyone who contradicts me is vandal!"". I started a thread on the talk page, another user has agreed with me , but Kurt Leyman has not bothered to take part in the discussion. I can furnish more explanations if you will, but I think it is clear who is being disruptive in this case.   

 ""whack on an uncheckable source "" Your PoV does not invalid the source. ""then to shout: ""this is the truth, anyone who contradicts me is vandal!"" I have never even remotely said such. ""I think it is clear who is being disruptive in this case.""  
 Wikipedia policies do not allow reverting sourced material as you do and you have failed to provide a cited counter for the result.   

 :You're avoiding the obvious argument here. I don't have to provide a ""cited counter"", as you quaintly put it, because you are pushing the wrong version of the word ""decisive"". If you want to argue this point further I suggest you do it on the article talk page. 

 :I hope you appreciate, Woohookitty, that this user has obstinately refused to discuss this issue in any way. He is only discussing it now in the hope of portraying me as a vandal, and getting me blocked. I am not a vandal, and I have never been blocked for violating wikipedia's policies. Kurt Leyman, on the other hand, engages in controversy on a regular basis, and has been blocked many times. Regards.   

 Do not make assumptions and push your PoV. I have not asked anyone to be blocked. Your last phrase is completely irrelevant and attempts to blackpaint me on basis of my former history - Wohookitty is well aware of my history. The fact is that Wikipedia policies do not allow removal of sourced information as you have done in this case.   

 ::I don't have to blackpaint you, your block log speaks for itself. I find it rather ironic that I am being accused of violating policies, by a user who has repeatedly shown his contempt for these very same policies. Actually, you're rather badly placed to start WikiLawyering, especially as you are gaming the system in order [[Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to