` :``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?  ] `