--[[User:Ante Perkovic|Ante Perkovic]] 05:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
--[[User:Ante Perkovic|Ante Perkovic]] 05:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
== This IP is blocked ==
Since this IP is used by [[User:Velebit]] and his socks exclusively, I have blocked it. --[[User:Dijxtra|Dijxtra]] 11:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Revision as of 11:18, 17 October 2006
Advice
Please stop targeting one or more users' talk pages for abuse or insults, unwarranted doctoring or blanking. It can be seen as vandalism and may get you blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Shanel20:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 8 hours. Please discuss this here if you wish to William M. Connolley13:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is your last warning. Removing warnings from your talk page is considered vandalism. You will be blocked from editing Wikipedia and your talk page will be protected from editing if you do it again. - Ali-oops✍19:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I was teasing you for seeing that you put this warning 'You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule' only here and not to talk pages of others who were regularly reverting the same page twice a day - day after day. If you are offended by my response or you have another reason to excercise your admin privileges - go ahead and do it!
I really do not like it when a man is unacceptably selective while treating others some way.
You keep reverting the article Neo-Nazism without explanation. I am ready for discussion and have provided my arguments on the talk page, but you have not replied anything sensible. I do not intend to engage in an edit war. Therefore, I will give you a day or two to explain your position. After that, I will assume you are acting in bad faith and invite administrators to sort this out. --Zmaj14:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I said - you did not explain anything. To make you partially happy - I removed just two refereces. No need for re-wording the last paragraph--64.18.16.25119:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)<end copy>[reply]
Funny thing, You removed exactly those references that proves croatian police doing their work. Talking about NPOV... right.. like you are capable of ever writing something afirmative about Croatia. No, your prejadices are just to strong for that to happen.
Another funny thing is that one of the links is the one that I wrote you about (remember "thank you for proving my point" discussion?). --Ante Perkovic08:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not about Croatian police - either, they are pretending working against the Ustashe. Anyway, I've put back the reference I removed before. Hope it'll make you happy.--64.18.16.25113:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your readiness to talk, but we have still not started a serious discussion. You misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia. It is not to make me or Ante happy, but to make good articles. So let us continue the discussion on the talk page of Neo-Nazism. I explained that manifestations of ethnic hatred are not Neo-Nazism. You seem to think differently. Please provide your arguments there. --Zmaj13:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You did not explain anything - you've claimed it! The Neo-Nazims and entic hatred are intertwined in today's Croatia. Obviously, not in China or India. - Just read the references.--64.18.16.25117:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neo-Nazims and entic hatred are are interwinded, but they are not equivalent. You can't claim that every possible case anti-serbian sentiment is fascism. That is proposterous.
Most people's dislike of Serbs is the result of serbian politics of the 1990's, not of anybody's ideology from the 1940's.
I saw that you and User:Purger all together made 4 reverts in last 24h.
Since I believe that you two are the same person and that you log in and out in order to evade breaking 3RR, I see this as a exotic kind of sock puppetry.
So, I will have to ask you to tell me are you and User:Purger the same person.
I do have right to ask this, because if I'm right, then this could be called vreaking the 3RR.
I'm glad to hear that! Since I don't believe you, I'm opening a case at WP:RCU. And, since you have nothing to hide, I excpect you to support my request. It's a great opportunity to make me look a little paranoid. Don't miss it! Support my request!
Hi! Since you are not a Purger, please answer this simple question: do you agree that we make WP:RCU on this. If you support this, it will almost certainly be done. As you said yourself, you have nothing to hide. Please, answer this question - do you agree that we make a RCU on you? Yes or no?
No. You are a man that lacks good manners and a man whose heroes are war criminals! Please, stop dropping your garbage here!
This is poor attempt to change the subject from your sock-puppetry, and the part related to war criminals is pure slender. You didn't even explained why you wouldn't like to give me a chance to prove to everybody that you are not Purger. You have nothing to lose, isn't it ;)? --Ante Perkovic16:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
So, you're not Purger. Good ;).
Avoiding to break 3RR?
Hi,
You made your 4th change in 24h and 2 minutes :). Looks like you are trying to avoid breaking the 3RR? So, when we can expect your next revert? Around 15:36h UT?
It would be much easier for you if you just create one more sock-puppet, wouldn't it?
I know that you have right to stay unlogged, but I suggest you to log. Otherwise, people might assume that you still deny that you are user:Purger.
It would be best for all that you finally admit to others what is clear as a day and we might go from the start.
Also, it would be nice that you stop deleting sock-puppet warnings from your sock-puppet's pages. I have them all on my watchlist, so it's useless anyway.
So, can you make a fresh new start?
I promise I'll try to see you as a new person, regardless of your previous misconducts.
O, come on... Just stop pretending that tis IP was ever user by anyone except you - user:Purger. A 2-digit-IQ person can see, by looking at this IP's contriutions, that it was so far used by single person, and that person is user:Purger.
Your prolonged denial (revisionism, apologism ... pick one of your favorite etiquetes ;) ... just make you look more and more unmature. --Ante Perkovic10:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that you would like to hide your past by trying to prove that this is not a page of a user with permanent IP but mere fact that you deleted it using this very IP makes your try ridiculous.
