"

 Given your username  and the content of your user page I do not consider you an unbiased person on this issue and I wish that you had left it to another, neutral administrator to act on this matter, especially so that other editors of that page whom I assume requested your intervention share your allegiance and were in persistent violation of wikipedia policies that ""content must be based on verifiable sources""; Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia: Cite sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and have failed to abide by those wikipedia policies despite my repeated requests in the talk pages, hence justifying my description of their demonstrable, deliberate false content as lies, and my characterisation of their conduct as lying. My so-called ""personal attacks"" on them simply characterised their conduct and does not meet wikipedia's Blocking policy's definition of ""Personal attacks which place users in danger"" provision that should be ""rarely used"" as a justification for blocking, as for ""excessive reverts"" the blocking policy clearly states that ""In the cases where multiple parties violate the rule, sysops should treat all sides equally""; have you done so? I see that you haven't as one of them has just now branded content that was painstakingly cited on a point-by-point basis to verifiable and reliable sources a ""hoax"" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Indian_and_Arabic_numerals. I will be reporting this to multiple, neutral wikipedia administrators and WikiEN-l mailing list and asking for a review of the situation. ()"