User talk:157.228.98.181: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:45, 19 March 2008

Since you're blocked already as User:157.228.118.212, you are blocked under any IP. I'll help you out by adding a block here; there are already admins reviewing your contributions at the 3RR board and on your other talk page, so there's no need to use a second IP while blocked. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But I have stopped editing WP mainspace the moment I realised there was a "case". I was just trying to respond to the accusations against me in the 3RR page. What can I do to respond? --157.228.98.181 (talk) 15:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're already doing it; you're using the unblock template to discuss it at your own talk page. There isn't anything further that you need to do; LOTS of admins review the list of people requesting unblock. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not abusing multiple accounts. How is that an abuse since from the very beggining of the whole ordeal [1] and especially from the moment I have realised that there was a case [2] I've identified myself (as the same user)? Do I need to request an unblock here too?

Also , I am not evading any block. I have stopped editing wikipedia’s mainspace from the moment I've realised that there was a 3RR case. Minutes before I thought that it was a random case of misunderstanding an "anonymous" user, as I have experienced with User:Keilana and started to investigate further. How do you know or presume that I am a "she"? --157.228.98.181 (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

concerns

I feel that this is becoming a "bashing-the-'anon'-user" case. I have tried to explain most of my edits with extensive edit summaries and use of the the talk pages, making it blatantly obvious that it is the same person editing. Where is your considered concerns in any of my edits with all the IP's involved that supposedly deserved a 31-hour ban (without any warning or any discussion in any talk page, at that too)?

-- 157.228.98.181 (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have unblocked the other account. Bearian (talk) 17:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider unblocking this account too. I do not know what you mean by that "not because you did the right thing but..."; do you feel that there is a grave concern somewhere? --157.228.98.181 (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity, since you seem to be somewhat convinced that I was "edit-warring". Are my extensive edit summaries not enough to justify reverts (back to long established versions, combating vandalism or blatant POV pushing etc) especially considering the dubious editing behaviour of users as User:Realtycoon? Have you considered his/her behaviour at all? --157.228.98.181 (talk) 17:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit behaviour

What do I mean by that dubious edit behaviour of the particular user and many other as him/her (in many areas but particularly in contagious issues as this).

User:Realtycoon firstly appeared here. S/he continued by POV-tagging various Macedonia related articles [3] [4]. From a long standing contributor (as s/he claims in his user page) , quoting also some WP guidelines, s/he is transformed to a total newbie (being incapable setting a case [5], making "newbie" mistakes as in here ; s/he is then, transformed into a somewhat experienced user, yet again (calling me a "Wiki-Lawyer") up to even calling upon WP:ARBMAC here, albeit with some crudeness. Long story short, I feel that this user is trying very hard to portray a newbie profile. S/he is involved in this charade, just to to involve editors/administrators, that may not be familiar with this case and its many specifics, using them in order to push his/her POV. --157.228.98.181 (talk) 18:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that I just have to respond to these accusations. First of all, I have made a proposal on the RfC page to hopefully settle the dispute of lack of a better work POV pushing by both Macedonians and Greeks.

However, your statements of "I feel that this user is trying very hard to portray a newbie profile. S/he is involved in this charade, just to to involve editors/administrators, that may not be familiar with this case and its many specifics, using them in order to push his/her POV. --157.228.98.181 (talk) 18:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)"[reply]

is libelous and false. I am a long contributer to wikipedia. What I am not is a contributer (until now) in the wild world of Wikipedia-Politics regarding the various rules, regulations, manuals of style, and disputes between editors that seem to be one of the biggest flaws and threats to wikipedia and it's "Open Collaboration" and "Wiki" concepts.

I prefer to edit and fix articles and contribute any information that I come across, that are a useful contribution to this community. I honestly just don't have the time or patients for the "Wikipolitics BS". Leave your personal attacks against me out of it.

Let's just settle this like adults and hopefully you can see the fairness of my proposal of a poll/consensus for the page in question.

Regards,

Realtycoon (talk) 23:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

For the reasons stated above and in multiple other places. Thanks

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=For the reasons stated above and in multiple other places. Thanks |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=For the reasons stated above and in multiple other places. Thanks |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=For the reasons stated above and in multiple other places. Thanks |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Endorsement needed for RfC with User:Realtycoon

Hi there, I am currently starting a dispute resolution process for user Realtycoon's excessive edit warring at Alexander the Great (disambiguation) and I require the assistance of another user. I was hoping that since you were involved with this situation at one point, that you would be willing to endorse my request for comment by signing the request where needed, and by contacting Realtycoon in order to achieve a resolution. My attempts while perfectly civil, have all failed. Thank you for your time. --ž¥łǿχ (ŧäłķ | čøŋŧřīъ§) 18:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will gladly contribute my views. Currently, I'm not capable to, because this IP address is blocked and I do not intend to "switch IPs" just to evade a ban (as alleged by some people). Even if unblocked, I intend not to make any edits in WP's Mainspace for a period of 12 to 24 hours as a self-inflicting ban (since it seems that I did not and was not given satisfactory explanations). I have to stress though that, I believe that I have not violated, nor technically (to my knowledge) nor in spirit any of WP's policies, rules and guidelines. --157.228.98.181 (talk) 19:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]