" 
 :No, no, please don't shut yourself up. Reasonable discourse with any editor, no matter if they are an administrator or not, is perfectly reasonable. Let's take your post from 2:12, 28 August 2009 for example: ""I agree with Meowy, this seems like an attempt to rid the articles from ""unfavorable"" content. Why wouldn't wikipedia cover the harrasment of Azerbaijanis, whose only ""mistake"" was voting for their neighbors song. And this comes from a country that claims that it's the most tolerant country in the world. So yes, I think if there is information supported by verifiable and reliable sources it should be included."" That could have been worded far better to make your point stick. If you had made the following changes instead, it would have been far more effective a statement: ""I agree with Meowy, this seems like an attempt to rid the articles from ""unfavorable"" content. Why wouldn't wikipedia cover the harrasment of Azerbaijanis, whose only ""mistake"" was voting for their neighbors song. And this comes from a country that claims that it's the most tolerant country in the world. So yes, I think if there is information supported by verifiable and reliable sources it should be included."" I hope that helps; please do reply to this if you wish for me to explain any point further. Thanks,  () "