User talk:Rgulerdem/Archive 4 (Apr 27, 06): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 05:02, 20 March 2006

New Messages

You can leave your messages below this line...

Notice

I just think it fair and the polite thing to do to warn you that one more revert and you will be in violation of WP:3RR. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 02:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point of trying to convince you again but my edits are not and never have been vandalism, see Wikipedia:Vandalism for the exact definition and if you think my edits are vandalism then your judgement is clouded by your point of view (as mine is probably clouded by mine) the difference is that I can admit it and as such I have stopped actively editing the proposal lest you continue to revert all my edits. I would also like to point you to WP:OWN in which you are in violation since you are acting judge and jury as to what is allowed in the proposal and you are actively removing anything you don't like so as such you are acting like you own it. I suggest you let the poll go and if everyone agrees with you then either they'll all vote support for it or they'll comment on the fact that it is too soon... in fact I'll add that as a voting subheader so people who think it is too soon can express that without clogging up the general comment space. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 02:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning

This is a warning that you are currently in violation of WP:3RR. Considering that this seems like a fairly minor issues I don't see why either of you should be blocked but please discuss instead of edit warring. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 02:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since I am taking an administrative role in this I refuse to get involved beyond actively encourging you both to work it out, if it will help I'll post a note to that extent on the talk page. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 02:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a plea for all editors to calm down which will hopefully help the situation as well as reminding everyone involved what will happen if this degrades into a massive edit war. Please try to work this out peacefully. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 02:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR and WP:OWN on Wikipedia:Wikiethics

I've blocked you for 24 hours for violating [[WP:3RR[[ and WP:OWN. If you don not want your proposal to be edited mercilessly, keep it in your userspace until it is finished. —Ruud 12:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your account was blocked for a reason. Stop editing using IP addresses; I have blocked 128.255.45.117 until the end of your block. If you use other IPs, I will extend your block. Superm401 - Talk 00:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which I've already done to 31 hours. NSL E _(T+C) at 00:58 UTC (2006-03-18)

Thank you... Can I learn for what reason? Resid Gulerdem 01:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The IP was blocked because you were using it to evade a block of this username. You have also made edits from another IP 216.248.123.161, so I am extending that block until the block on your username expires. Do not edit from any computer until the block on this account has expired. Superm401 - Talk 02:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ThoMas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked, and your block extended to 50 hours for block-circumventing sockpuppetry. NSL E _(T+C) at 04:33 UTC (2006-03-18)

I do not think that you know what you are doing! My blocking was not fair at all. We had a dispute on the page Wikipedia:Wikiethics with Metta Bubble (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). User:Metta Bubble is more experienced than me and so s/he reported my edits to 3RR page. Although s/he made much more reverts that I did, I am blocked by an admin who apperantly had no time to check the history of the page. That is unfair. Do you all admins work here like this?

Thomas is one of my friend but he is not sockpuppet. He was trying to help me when I am blocked by one of the admins.

I ask you, please if you are serious in being fair to all, check the history page Wikipedia:Wikiethics and see the demage Metta Bubble (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) did there. I hope you could consider taking some actions against him/her too.

It is good to ask people follow the rules, but you should do it more consciously. Resid Gulerdem 09:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

STOP NOW

You are to stop using IPs and sockpuppets immediately or I will not hesitate to indefinitely block you. NSL E _(T+C) at 05:01 UTC (2006-03-18)

Slow down! Read my note above. Resid Gulerdem 09:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me NSLE, why did you delete this? Should not you take care of it? Are not these serious violations? Resid Gulerdem 09:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I have extended 216.248.123.161's block to match the new 50 hour one. I won't extend the block on 128.255.45.117 because it is a University of Iowa address and there may be collateral damage; however I will contact their ITS if you continue to use that address for block avoidance. Superm401 - Talk 07:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True or not, my ID address you wrote above is a personal information and you should not disclose it. Will you be agree on that too? Resid Gulerdem 10:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. IP addresses are open knowledge from page histories. Do not force us to file an arbitration request. NSL E _(T+C) at 10:51 UTC (2006-03-18)

I am sure you can do it for no reason, as you deleted a claim in the page I copied above. Apperantly you do not have higher administrative standards. What makes you think that I am forcing you (Who is us? Are you responsible to talk for Superm too?) for an arbitration request? Do your job correctly, unbiased, wisely... That is it! I do not ask you aything else. By the way do not bother me with your unnecessary messages anymore. Resid Gulerdem 11:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am supposed to be unblocked now, it should be over. But NSL blocked me for no reason again. Who should I talk to about this? What is the reason you are doing that right now? He deleted my messages from his page too. You do not want to have your mistakes told you right? It is better to give advise to people around. How does it feel to misuse admin privileges NSL? Do you feel comfortable or ashamed? Resid Gulerdem 11:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you were/still are blocked 50 hours, and I'd advise y stop using your talk page to make disparaging remarks. NSL E _(T+C) at 11:18 UTC (2006-03-18)

Here is the reason NSL provided for his block:

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing You were blocked by NSLE with the reason "Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Rgulerdem". The reason given for Rgulerdem's block is: "reinstating somehow-avoided block"." (see our blocking policy). Your IP address is 216.248.124.44.

I was supposed to be unblocked, not to be blocked. Will you stop your discretionary actions? For what reason you are extending the block? I would advise you unblock me right away and explain the reason for your poor behaviour! Resid Gulerdem 11:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect, you are rightfully blocked (see above for reasoning on 50 hour block). Cut the incivility or I will extend the block. NSL E _(T+C) at 11:27 UTC (2006-03-18)

You are incorrect. You already extended right now. I was unblocked and you extended it for no reason. I am sure you can extend more. Once a person is used to misuse the priviliges he has, he starts doing so repeatedly. Calm down, and be civil. Or probably I shold talk to you in your tone so you can understand: Cut this discretionary action right now. You do not have right to block me for no reason! Resid Gulerdem 11:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see no further reason to continue discussion with you. I will soon be in touch with an arbitration request. Your incivility has also led me to decide to protect your talk page - you can request unprotection by emailing an uninvolved admin. NSL E _(T+C) at 11:36 UTC (2006-03-18)

Unprotected

I've unprotected that page, but what I'd really advise is that you don't edit it anyway. Go away for a while, have a cuppa, look at some pretty pictures, think about what we're all here for.

I know that it can be difficult to be polite when you're frustrated, but it's not optional. Edits like "Or probably I shold [sic] talk to you in your tone so you can understand" don't help to resolve problems, they only escalate them.

brenneman ^{T}^{L} 11:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second brenneman's comments, and remind you that blocking is not a punitive action, it's preventative. There is no automatic right to be unblocked, and you can expect your block to remain in force if you keep trying to evade your block by editing without logging in or editing from different accounts. So go look at some pictures, and if you're not a fan of pictures, go surfing for a while. When you are ready to work cooperatively, within the rules, we'll be ready to have you back. --bainer (talk) 12:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. The point is my block is extended by NSLE for no reason for 50 hours. Why no one is dealing with it? Resid Gulerdem 12:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will take your word for it and won't edit for now. But I still ask you please unblock me. I did nothing for a blockage. I cannot undertand this. Simply not fair. Resid Gulerdem 12:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This admin (NSLE) is deleting all my edits. On his talk page it is OK. He is doing that on even another admins page. I put a note on the talk page of Talk another admin involved. I realized that NSLE deleted my comments on the other admin's talk page. It is totally uncomprehensible to me. He even vandalized a note I put on the policy proposalpage. He has gone too far... Resid Gulerdem 12:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin is wrong.

This man alone shouldn't be blamed for editing the articles. Just because somebody comes along while he is blocked doesn't mean he's a sockpuppet. Shame on NSL E _(T+C) —This unsigned comment was added by Hars Aldenn (talk • contribs) . (User's third edit?!?)

Well thank you! I was not used to hear natural voices recently. Can anyone unblock me too. NSLE blocked me for 50 hours for no reason. Resid Gulerdem 12:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiethics

I thought you might want to know about the poll in the Wikipedia:Wikiethics discussion page. Rgulerdem

Unfortunately - using an IP to evade a block predisposes me against any position you are taking there. However it seems you are not getting the support for your positioin that you desire, so I am not going to try and figure out exactly what your position is - Trödel 12:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I have commented on your request on my talk page. Please read there. I have also voted for a delay of the poll, and asked how the polls conflict. DanielDemaret 19:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks

Ruglerdem, please listen. The block on this account, 216.248.123.161, and 216.248.123.156 will remain in effect until 12:56 on March 20, 2006 (UTC). I am also aware that you are editing from the University of Iowa address 128.255.45.117. This has not been blocked because it may be a shared address, but I will contact them if you evade your block using one of their addresses. You will not get unblocked by finding more IPs or usernames and spamming on talk pages. The only way you can get unblocked is by calming down and waiting patiently until 1 PM UTC of March 20th. Superm401 - Talk 20:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to edit before then (from any IP or account), you will be blocked indefinitely. Superm401 - Talk 20:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking talk page

I have re-protected your talk page, as you blanked the warnings here (it's impossible for you to be archiving them, as you're blocked). NSL E _(T+C) at 05:16 UTC (2006-03-19)

Rgulerdem, please do not blank your talk page. It is important for other users and admins to be able to view the discussions about your block, and the warnings prior to your block, so they can understand why you were blocked. You can archive the warnings and block discussions later, if you like, but for at least as long as the block is in effect, the comments need to stay. I have unprotected your talk page, but I am warning you not to blank it again or it will be re-protected. --bainer (talk) 05:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of that policy. Thank you for letting me know. I wish NSLE could inform me about it before protecting my page. S/he is apperantly takes the issue so personal and follow my steps in Wiki. Is there any way that I can inform some supervisors about NSLE's unethical behaviour? I cannot believe this: NSLE could himself extended my blockage for 50 hours for no reason and nobody is willing to unblock me. Shouldn't there be a rule for discretionary actions? Please let me know also if I can talk to a superviser regarding my unfair blockage? There is no reason for being blocked at this point! Resid Gulerdem 05:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are no official supervisors, Rgulerdem, administrators are a community of peers. I would remind you that a number of admins have viewed your page, a number of them warned you not to violate the three revert rule, and a number of them have agreed with your block. You are free to appeal to other admins if you view your block as unfair, but none so far have disagreed. My advice is to wait out your block, refrain from making any more inflammatory (or even potentially inflammatory) remarks and try to make a fresh start when your block expires. --bainer (talk) 05:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thebainer, please take some time and listen to my case:

I started a policy proposal Wikipedia:Wikiethics. I invited some people for contribution. Unfortunately, among them, became clear later that, there was a person I should not have invited. That person, Metta Bubble (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continuously reported the dispute we are having on Wikiethics page to WP:AN/3RR incorrectly. Although I was not violating 3 revert rule (please show me where I did, if you believe that I violated), an admin Ruud blocked me without prior warning. Then a friend of mine User:ThoMas is posted Metta Bubble (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s reverts on the page WP:AN/3RR but no action is taken. NSLE deleted that information from the page WP:AN/3RR. S/he even deleted my note regarding the issue from the talk page of the admin Superm401. When my block is ower I was back to edit. I signed in, but know what? NSLE bloced me again for no reason. Now I am still blocked although my blockage at the first place was not fair and justified. Again, if I am wrong, please provide a link so that I violated a 3 RR. Do you think it is fair?

In this process, the only mistake I did was, I used anonim IP's to edit on the page Wikipedia:Wikiethics. But I always signed my name like Resid even I was using anonim IP's. NSLE even vandalized my edit in that page. Why I used anonim IPs: Becase Metta Bubble (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is trying to kill a precess I started. There was a concensus for having a poll later in two months about the proposal. Metta Bubble (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and another user decided to start a poll right away. The policy page is not mature and I would like to improve it with other users contribution. I announced the page on some pages including 'village pump'. To stop their action on killing the proposal, I felt I have to make some comments using anonim IP. I accept that it is wrong. Now, on Wikipedia:Wikiethics, Metta Bubble (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) deleted my poll regarding if we need to have a poll at this stage of the article. S/he played a dirty game on me and I still cannot find a way to stop that destruction. I cannot see why anybody go check it and take some actions on Metta Bubble (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s vandalisms.

Thanks for your note. Resid Gulerdem 06:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User: Metta Bubble

This is the note about User: Metta Bubble's destruction on Wikipedia:Wikiethics page. The list does not cover the ones after I am blocked.

1. Reverts:

reverting per POV starting edit war reverting per POV starting edit war reverting per POV starting edit war starting edit war reverting per POV starting edit war In the links above Metta Bubble (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reverting the page according to POV.

2. Vandalism:

deleting another editors comments deleting another editors comments In the links above Metta Bubble (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is vandalizing another editors comments or just deleting some of them.

3. Vandalizing another editors comments:

destructing another editors comments destructing another editors comments In the links above Metta Bubble (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is making changes on comments of another editor to change the course of discussion or change the intension of the editor.

Reported by: Resid Gulerdem 09:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Vandal Metta Bubble (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is vandalizing, destructing and reverting continuously the discussion page Wikipedia:Wikiethics according to POV. Uncivil comments can be found in the history page. Immediate attention is required.

Three Revert Rule

Resid, I suggest you read the three-revert rule policy carefully. Reverts are edits "undoing the actions of another editor in whole or part," not just any objectionable edit. The four reverts you made are [1], [2], [3], [4]. You were blocked as a result of them; I can also see clearly that you were previously warned about reverting by Pegasus1138. There was absolutely no reason for Ruud to warn you again after that. You claim that a friend posted a 3RR complaint about Metta Bubble that was unfairly ignored. However, the text was removed because it is clear that ThoMas was actually you evading a block (in this edit, you sign as yourself). If you still believe Metta Bubble violated the 3RR, you can post this information to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR after your block expires; an uninvolved admin can decide. Superm401 - Talk 09:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will take your advise for it and will read it again. And a piece of advise to you: please read my comments carefully too, before attempting to write an answer. Moreover, look at the dispute more closer to get a better idea.

Pegasus1138 is a user and his warn is just a cheap tactic as User:Metta Bubble's complains about me on WP:AN/3RR. If you look at my name on that page, you will see that Pegasus1138 is also warned by an admin at the same time I am warned for other reasons. Do you care about a tactic-warning from a person in the opposite side of the dispute? These two users are foxy and well experienced. They wanted me blocked so that they can destroy the policy page I started. And they are almost there. Thanks to the admins involved... I will definitely fix things when I am unblocked.
User:ThoMas is not a soccpuppet. He was trying to help me and new to Wiki. I am sure he doesn't want to be part of Wiki family anymore and I do not blame on him. I understand from your comments that you really did not check the links I provided. If you look at the User:Metta Bubble case, you will see more serious violations. If you look at this link you will see that Thomas is only copy-pasting a comment from me (not signing my name), which is vandalized by User:Metta Bubble earlier. If, you check the history of the page Wikipedia:Wikiethics you will see that, you cannot find a single incident that, I used an IP and did not sign the page. If I am using an anonim IP, I always sign it by Resid. You can check it, it is all there....
When I was unblocked, I posted my complaint about User:Metta Bubble on the WP:AN/3RR and another admin deleted it second time, after NSLE did. You can check it from the history. And right after my post on WP:AN/3RR, I am blocked by admin NSLE for 50 hours for no reason. You can check my edit on the page WP:AN/3RR and when I am blocked by NSLE.
Now, I am writing all those, you read it and some other admins. No one stop this unfair judgement of NSLE and unblock me. Can you tell me why? Do not you want to step on another admins toes? Is it more important than to eliminate an unjust act?
No one taking any actions against User:Metta Bubble. Can you explain me why? You say: 'if I believe, I can post it there on WP:AN/3RR. An admin will look at it'. I am saying I did it and as a result I am blocked for it. Why do not you, for example, as a person contributed to the page Wikipedia:Wikiethics and know some about what has happened, go ahead and take some action against Vandal but directing me to some others instead? All the evidences I provided is there. You apperantly know what 3RR rule is... You are warning me every other hour if I use IP, or whatever, I will be blocked indefinitely. Can't you really do something about Metta too, just for the sake of fairness, at least?

I am loosing my trust to the system here, and to some admins specifically, unfortunately. Resid Gulerdem 10:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resid, perhaps you haven't understood the sequence of events here, so I'll go through them again: firstly you were warned by Jtkiefer (who also warned the other user engaged in reverting). Some hours later, you were blocked for 24 hours by Ruud for continuing to revert. You then edited from a different IP address, thus evading your block. As such, the block was extended to 31 hours by NSLE, with the support of Superm401. Your block was subsequently extended again to 50 hours, after you edited from another IP address, and apparently from the account ThoMas (all accounts signed with your name).

You should also read the blocking policy. Blocks are per person, not per account. Using different accounts, or editing anonymously, indicates a bad faith attempt to evade your block, which as I stated above, is a preventative action designed to enforce a cooling off period.

As you can see, there have been at least five different admins involved here. Here we are concerned with your behaviour, not anyone else's, and we have all agreed that your behaviour has been inappropriate. However, if you can serve out the remainder of your block (currently about 26 hours) in peace, and then return and edit constructively, there will be no problems. Please try to relax until that time. --bainer (talk) 10:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask you if you did write this after my note above? As I explained above, I do accept that using IP's was no good. I also explained my reason for it. NSLE did not extended my blockedge 50 hours because I used IP. I was unblocked at that time. You can see it from WP:AN/3RR history page. After I post the info about Metta Bubble, I am blocked by NSLE. I cannot understand your saying (all accounts signed with your name)? What do you mean? If you look at carefully, you will see that the same admin is blocked him too. Please look at my note above about the case again. I cannot see your point. I am saying that: He is a friend of mine. He was trying to help me. I do not use sockpoppets. I have always signed my name (like Resid) in the talk pages even when I am using anonim IP, I do not need to use a sockpuppet. You are still saying that 'all accounts signed with your name'. Can you help me understand this, please?

You know what: it is not end of the world that I cannot edit for two days here. I do not care and it does not matter. What matters is the principles: I am right, but my account punihsed unjustly. That is what I cannot accept. Would the admins who think that my behaviour is inappropriate like to be in my position? Thanks for the note, and trying to make the case clearer to me anyways... Resid Gulerdem 11:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Let me try to explain to you in the clearest English possible - if you don't speak English as a first language perhaps feeding the reply through an online translator will help. As Bainer said, you were first warned and blocked over 3RR. As you're not supposed to edit while you're blocked, I (with agreement of Superm401) extended your block to 31 hours. During this time, the IP addresses which you posted replies with (as well as User:ThoMas), whcih all had left messages signed as "Resid", were blocked. When you continues to use IP addresses (WP:POINT, disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point), I decided to extend your block to 50 hours. Here is the confusing part. Somehow or other, within the same day, without you ever being unblocked (see your block log:

18:56, March 18, 2006 NSLE blocked "Rgulerdem (contribs)" with an expiry time of 50 hours (reinstating somehow-avoided block)
12:32, March 18, 2006 NSLE blocked "Rgulerdem (contribs)" with an expiry time of 50 hours (unblock to extend block for using sockpuppets to circumvent block) )

You were never unblocked, but somehow resumed editing. As you were supposed to be blocked, I reverted (and other users too) your chages to the 3RR vio report page - as while you're blocked, you shouldn't be editing, we don't care if the report is true or not, you can always report it AFTER your block.

As you were never unblocked, but had resumed editing, there was obviously a flaw in the system, and hence I re-instated your 50 hour block. Therefore your current block is for the same reason as the first 50-hour block that due to some glitch in the system expired. I hope I've cleared this up. NSL E _(T+C) at 00:46 UTC (2006-03-20)

It is clear that you can read and write in English like a native. I am not sure though if you can understand well what you are reading. I am sorry that I do not know any dictionary or something else to suggest you to cure this problem.

Could you understand what I wrote about User:ThoMas. Please go and read once more, carefully this time. And then answer my question: How come in this world that you are blocking an editor for nothing? I ask you unblock him right away. He is certainly lost all his interest in a single day to Wiki, but still you should take back your

unethical and unjustified action. How come you deleted this? It was edited by User:ThoMas. Is it enough if you say someone is sockpuppet for him be? Is what you say here a rule? I ask you justify your action...

I am not asking you why you blocked IP's I was using. I already said it was not true and explained why I did that. I also added that I always sign my edits even I am using an IP. I do not need to use a sockpuppet. What is hard to understand here?
The flaw in the system is not my problem. If I am unblocked, then I am unblocked. I recommend you go and fix the problem in the system, not delete my edits. Here it is clear that I was unblocked and I edited properly. Nothing wrong on my part!
Can you also explain why you deleted my edit from Wikipedia:Wikiethics page I linked above? Is it a standard action too?
You did not extended to 50 hours because I was using IP addresses. You extended it right after I made this edit. Aren't you distorting the facts a little bit? I was unblocked, I edited, I signed and my signature clearly reflects that I was unblocked in the link above. So how come you are extending it? Is it because your system is not working properly? OK, let us say you see that the system is not working properly, and you wanted to fix it: Why is the extension then? Why you did not reinstated to the earlier 31 hours but increased more as your wish, 50 hours?

I recommend you be more responsible and wise in using your priviliges. They are not for misusing... Resid Gulerdem 05:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 181: / Line 181: @@
 ::::As you were never unblocked, but had resumed editing, there was obviously a flaw in the system, and hence I re-instated your 50 hour block. Therefore your current block is for the same reason as the first 50-hour block that due to some glitch in the system expired. I hope I've cleared this up. [[User:NSLE|NSL]][[WP:EA|<font color="green">E]]</font> <sub>([[User_talk:NSLE|T]]+[[Special:Contributions/NSLE|C]])</sub> at 00:46 [[Coordinated Universal Time|UTC]] <small>([[2006-03-20]])</small>
+It is clear that you can read and write in English like a native. I am not sure though if you can understand well what you are reading. I am sorry that I do not know any dictionary or something else to suggest you to cure this problem.
+* Could you understand what I wrote about [[User:ThoMas]]. Please go and read once more, carefully this time. And then answer my question: How come in this world that you are '''blocking an editor for nothing'''? I ask you unblock him right away. He is certainly lost all his interest in a single day to Wiki, but still you should take back your
+unethical and unjustified action. How come you deleted [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&diff=prev&oldid=44314833 this?] It was edited by [[User:ThoMas]]. Is it enough if you say someone is sockpuppet for him be? Is what you say
+here a rule? I ask you justify your action...
+* I am not asking you why you blocked IP's I was using. I already said it was not true and explained why I did that. I also added that I always sign my edits even I am using an IP. I do not need to use a sockpuppet. What is hard to understand here?
+* The flaw in the system is not my problem. If I am unblocked, then I am unblocked. I recommend you go and fix the problem in the system, not delete my edits. Here it is clear that I was unblocked and I edited [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&diff=44336797&oldid=44335450 properly.] Nothing wrong on my part!
+* Can you also explain why you deleted my edit from [[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]] page I linked above? Is it a standard action too?
+* You did not extended to 50 hours because I was using IP addresses. You extended it right after I made [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&diff=44336797&oldid=44335450 this edit.] Aren't you distorting the facts a little bit? I was unblocked, I edited, I signed and my signature clearly reflects that I was unblocked in the link above. So how come you are extending it? Is it because your system is not working properly? OK, let us say you see that the system is not working properly, and you wanted to fix it: Why is the extension then? Why you did not reinstated to the earlier 31 hours but increased more as your wish, 50 hours?
+I recommend you be more responsible and wise in using your priviliges. They are not for misusing... [[User:Rgulerdem|Resid Gulerdem]] 05:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)