User talk:Astronomer28

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Astronomer28, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! William M. Connolley (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder about the three-revert rule[edit]

Your recent editing history at Nicolaus Copernicus shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Bear in mind that scholarly consensus is not necessarily the same as consensus among Wikipedia editors. You need to be prepared to discuss the matter and have multiple editors come around to your point before the change is made—especially since the Copernicus article is one that's had prolonged debates about this issue before. —C.Fred (talk) 00:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Astronomer28_reported_by User:William M. Connolley .28Result: .29 William M. Connolley (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have undone your 4th revert within 24 hours to the article where you changed his nationality to Polish. Because you are participating in the talk page discussion, and I'd like that discussion to continue, I have not blocked you. However, you have now violated WP:3RR and could be blocked by any other administrator.

As the editor attempting to change the status quo in the article, you have the burden of getting a new consensus among editors before your change can stick. I encourage you to continue to discuss the matter on the talk page and work toward a new consensus. However, continuing to change the article is disruptive, and I would not expect to get as sympathetic a response on your next revert. —C.Fred (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

February 2013[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Nicolaus Copernicus. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Secret ^account 17:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SPI[edit]

I have asked for a Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Astronomer28 regarding your latest edits at Nicolaus Copernicus. HerkusMonte (talk) 14:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are being discussed at WP:AN3[edit]

Hello Astronomer28. Please see WP:AN3#User:Mieszko 8 reported by User:William M. Connolley (Result: ). At first glance, it appears that you've been editing against the long-term consensus about the nationality of Nicolaus Copernicus. It is possible you may be blocked for edit warring. You may be able to avoid sanctions if you will reply in the above discussion and agree to wait for consensus before changing the article again. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Mieszko 8 reported by User:William M. Connolley (Result: Blocks). EdJohnston (talk) 06:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to Eastern Europe. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

Warring to change the nationality of Nicolaus Copernicus, an article where nationalist disputes have occurred many times in the past. EdJohnston (talk) 06:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston, I am not able to edit other pages at the moment, so let me set the record straight. First, I did not say that since there is no consensus possible there should be a majority vote. I said if you think there is consensus, put it up for a vote (some people have noted there is consensus to omit Copernicus' nationality which based on editor comments is clearly not true). Furthermore, I did not cite other Wikipedias, but other published, reliable sources. Last, I am not a sockpuppet or Mieszko8 or motivated by nationalism and find the charges unsubstantiated and frankly offensive. I simply want the article to be factually correct. Astronomer28 (talk) 15:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resumed edit warring at Nicolaus Copernicus[edit]

I notice that you've resumed your previous war at Nicolaus Copernicus. Since User:Secret had stated that any renewed warring by you might be the occasion for an indefinite block, I've been looking into that option. If you will avoid making any further changes to the Nicolaus Copernicus article prior to getting a talk page consensus, you may be able to avoid sanctions. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SPI[edit]

I have asked for a Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Serafin regarding your latest edits at Nicolaus Copernicus. HerkusMonte (talk) 15:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban[edit]

Because of your extensive edit-warring at Nikolaus Copernicus, you are now indefinitely banned from making any edits related to that article or to other issues of debated Polish/German nationality claims. This sanction will be logged at WP:ARBEE. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this ban extends also to talk page discussions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to request to have the ban lifted. How do I go about that? Thanks, Astronomer28 (talk) 11:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement bans can be appealed on WP:AE. Check out the instructions at the top of that page. (I'll remove the unblock template from your page here, since what you're asking for is not really an unblock.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I have filed an appeal and notified you on your Talk page. Astronomer28 (talk) 05:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned at ANI[edit]

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Copernicus mass sockpuppetry. You may respond there if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 04:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copernicus and such[edit]

If you are really not a sock, and want to improve this project, then you have to stop acting like a WP:SPA. I am sorry, but in most cases, what walks and quacks like a duck... if you want to help improve Compernicus, edit other articles, show yourself to be a constructive member of this project, and you'll be welcome back at the Copernicus article. (Also, in case you didn't realize it, Copernicus articles have been a magnet for trolls, vandals, SPAs and such for years, so people are quite tired of any conflict there, and use a rather big mallet). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SPAs can be perfectly legitimate, as in my case. I've provided details at WP:AE#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_astronomer28 Astronomer28 (talk) 05:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What you say there doesn't make sense, viz You may wonder why I have an SPA. It's for privacy. Are you sure you understand what is meant by WP:SPA? It means "single purpose account". it has no possible connection with privacy. You appear to believe that SPA is connected to editing under a pseudonym, which is entirely different (and, of course, totally acceptable) William M. Connolley (talk) 14:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]