User talk:Yopie

| Archive page

ahoj

môžeš mi povedať, prosím, svoj e-mail? (MKuciak (talk) 11:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)0

yopie2 zavinac gmail.com --Yopie (talk) 13:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Stop your vandalism in Hungarian related articles

Stop your panslavism & slavic brotherhood and other chauvinist childish activism in wikipedia. Panslavism was a romantic race based (racist) belief-system, which proved false in the light of modern genetic researches. Your Slovak brother is the only nation in Europe which have serious asiatic genetic backround, with "haplogroup M" Read the article: http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2008/01/mtdna-of-slovaks.html

Stop the deletion of well referenced articles. It is vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.78.2 (talk) 06:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Stubes99, because you are indefinitely blocked from editing, I will not communicate with you. --Yopie (talk) 12:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I have asked an ArbCom Warning

Hello Yopie,

I am under the impression that by these edits [1] [2], you comitted wikihounding and harassment again. So I have asked administrator Excirial to deliver you an ArbCom Warning, in order to be possible to commence a proper enforcment.--Nmate (talk) 05:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Servus Nmate,

thank you for reporting of Hobartimus vandalism, as you know, that deleting of others talk is vandalism. By the way, because you are not editor of articles Nobility in the Kingdom of Hungary or Austria-Hungary, somebody can say, that you are stalking me, or you are sock-puppet. --Yopie (talk) 12:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed Yopie I do consider some of your edits as such. Especially at talk Austria-Hungary. It was clearly explained that article talk pages are not for forums. I do wonder from time to time, what is your purpose. Hobartimus (talk) 15:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I have just noticed that in these edits, within 6 minutes you undid 3 of my edits in 3 different articles these were done at the following times

19:31, 2 September 2010

19:26, 2 September 2010

19:25, 2 September 2010

You marked one of the reverts as a minor edit as well, very interesting. Do you have some sort of WP:wikihounding thing going on here? I have to say I'm not impressed. Hobartimus (talk) 17:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear Hobartimus,

you vandalised talk page of Austria-Hungary, because you blanked the post of other user. This is vandalism, because WP:VANDAL says: Blanking the posts of other users from talk pages other than your own, Wikipedia space, and other discussions, is generally considered vandalism. Same policy says that If you see that a user has added vandalism you may also check the user's other contributions . Do you have any other questions or comments? --Yopie (talk) 09:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

We both know that's not the case, I see that you know added WP:personal attacks to the list as well. I provided a clear edit summary as to the reason of the removal (you very rarely provide any edit summaries at all). Edits made in good faith can never be vandalism as you well know. Further, talk pages are covered by covered by WP:TALk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article. The post was forum like trolling (like the others before it you should have removed those not readd drivel) sudeten germans, nazis, racism, there was many things in that post not one suggestion on improving the article or anything like that. But I suspect you didn't read the post as you have no interest in the article (as per the talk page logs) other than to follow around my edits. Just lay off of the personal attacks, and the following if you will because it's not a nice thing to do. Good day to you. Hobartimus (talk) 03:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Notice of Sanctions

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to the Balkans if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia#Final decision. Please note that this is not a judgment on any particular edit of yours. I'm simply putting you on notice that sanctions can be imposed without further warning. --Selket ^Talk 15:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Because my edits "in question" are not related to Balkans, but to Slovakia and Hungary, I presume that this notice is null and void.--Yopie (talk) 14:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

You presume wrong. The sanctions apply to the Balkans "broadly interpreted." Even if your edits to non-Balkan topics are not covered, future However, lest there be doubt there is an additional set of sanctions governing Eastern Europe about which you are hereby notified. --Selket ^Talk 21:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to Eastern Europe if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Final decision.

New Message

Hello, Yopie. You have new messages at Selket's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Alfred-Maurice de Zayas

You might want to have a look here: User talk:92.224.204.66#Insertion of German language books to unrelated articles – Please stop!. The IP's new address is 92.224.204.66. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.--Yopie (talk) 09:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

IP vandal

Hey Yopie, I saw you reverted a bunch of edits by IP editor 94.190.193.33, and wanted to let you know that they're back, doing the same old thing. Thanks, and take care, Drmies (talk) 16:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a short time for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. 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 below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The edits being made by the IP address at 1942 raid in Novi Sad do not appear to be vandalism; for you to continually revert them, therefore, is edit warring. In cases like this you need to discuss edits with the other editor, not revert them and request protection to force them out. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Yopie (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

There was only three reverts in 24 hours, after this I according to rules requested page protection. I presume, that warring IP is indef blocked Stubes99

Decline reason:

You have reverted a total of 7 times over the course of several days, with no apparent attempts to discuss the situation with the IP (Either on the article, or on their talk pages). Keep in mind that WP:3RR is simply an extension of WP:EW - if you are locked in an edit war the proper course is to disengage and discuss the issue. In case the other user refuses to discuss man can always report this to WP:AN3 in order to have the situation examined. I equally note that you requested semi-protection instead of full protection, which would only have affected the IP's ability to edit and not yours.

Having said all that, i would note that the edits in question are not clear vandalism, and that you usedrollback to revert them. I would point out that using rollback is only permitted when there is a clear reason to revert; Using rollback in an edit war may lead to the permission being revoked. To conclude - your unblock request doesn't indicate that you understood the block, which is the reason i am declining it for now. If you believe that the IP in question is stubes99, please open a case on WP:SSP, including plausible evidence for the accusation after you are unblocked. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.