Personal attack I didn t attack you I just corrected one small edit you had made It isn t accurate to write GNR Portuguese police because GNR a National Guard or gendarmerie a military body charged with police duties among civilian populations is usually known as the Guard Guarda and the designation police is almost always used for the PSP Pol cia de Seguran a P blica Finally the PJ Pol cia Judici ria is known as the Judici ria I didn t know we can t use the undo button if that was what you tried to say to me Cheers Sorry I am a bit stressed I do know gendarmerie is a french word but your new edit was cool Perhaps I am getting stressed cos I do nt like the Portuguese police and judiciary and feel desperately sorry for the McCaan s my own dislike is personal and as far as that is nt acceptable here at least I am admitting my prejudice I see you are Portuguese or at least a native speaker edit warring And stop accusing editors in good standing of trolling Take a break SqueakBox You re too experienced and too good an editor to behave like this Removing a POV tag is trolling adding it is nt simple as that And templating the regualrsd is not acceptabl e donmt do it again Dude your spelling is atrocious your attitude bizarre and your behavior intolerable Seriously I know you re better than this as I ve seen you around quite a bit You re obviously not yourself tonight TAKE A BREAK And this dispute has now been erroneously IMHO posted on ANI Spelling That s so 20th Century its called typos and it has nothing to do with spelling All I want is for the NPOV tag to stay its a reasonable request and its not asking too much as the article is POV Best wishes Cheers for the heads up re AN I Bah Spelling is important when the medium being used is written I don t understand why you are insisting on having a separate NPOV template instead of allowing the issue to be noted in the Multiple issues template that is already in the article Can you please explain Oh I do nt doubt the importance of spelling its typing I find difficult This article is so POV I do intend to seek out some other refs but NPOV demands both sides are prevsented and as I made clear on the talk that is nt happening in this article That some rascist editors are targetting it eg the banned fourdee is ample evidence of that I am baffled as to why anyone would remove the NPOV tag I never do that before resolving the issue Please answer the question Why do you insist on a separate NPOV template when the other one communicates the exact same idea but with less clutter I removed the blue tag I want the orange tag there and I have fully explained my reasons The article presents one side of an argument and not the other I do nt understand what the controversy is as I removed the unnotable blue tag No I m afraid that you haven t answered the question I don t see a need to for multiple templates when one easily suffices Nor do I That is why I have removed the blue tag An orange NPOV tag was created for a reason and it should stay as an orange tag What is the problem Anyway I see others are now edit warring i wo nt touch the article till teoimorrow but gibvenm editors like fourdee have edited the article its POV status is inevitable