"Vandalism"? Sorry, mister, but I haven't conducted vandalism a single time, and ALL of my edits so far (notify me if any of them are not contributive or factually correct) are legit edits. "Fuck off" was because of the overwhelming amount of obvious facts being asked for "citation", and was NOT meant for ANY specific user. Is Wikipedia this full of bull (and I'm using a euphenism because I'm sure you'll refer to "assume good faith" as soon as you see me using my own rhetoric) I'm bothered by bull, so I'm just here, nicely removing and being bold about editors screwing up badly. Ironically, I could write some edit summary to this edit like "fuck, things sure are fucked up pretty fuckily around fucky here" regarding the dumb in the fact that I had not attacked ANYONE SPECIFICALLY! Give me one evidence where I had mentioned a person, or a revision? Oops, there's none. This is the bull I'm talking about. Please, there are better things to worry than to ban some people because of some "behind the scene" metadata with a little cuss and a preposite.. Hint: the "fuck off" was towards the MANNERS and the piece of "" template, not ANY person or any group of editors. Tell me why all my effort in writing good articles, using proper punctuation and spelling, and using a Wikipedia-like style is overseen by admins who only look at some "edit summaries" who nobody really cares about?  [talk] 

Toxicity label: other