User talk:PepitoPerez2007

SPK; I will not revert your edit for now, even if I do not buy your idea, that the IZRU had nothing to do with the SPK, at all. One example for the continuity would be the long article defending SPK politicies 100% in the Kursbuch. The IZRU published the Trikont thing (?) and it also reprinted old SPK texts and I can detect only admiration for the SPK in the IZRU texts I know of. And what about personal continuities?--Radh (talk) 09:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

• Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
• Maintain a neutral point of view – this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
• Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page to follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons' policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
• No edit warring and sockpuppetry.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism, doing so will result your account or IP being blocked from editing.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Jorfer (talk) 03:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

August 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Euthanasia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing, for a period of 72 Hours, for Edit Warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:53, 5 August 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).

PepitoPerez2007 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Once I was adverted in my discussion page I restored completely Jorfer's edition, none of his claims in the noticeboard are based on that fact. I have not changed the page since then. I was asking repeatedly [1][2][3] him if he agrees with that last edition, but instead of any answer he went to the noticeboard. Now, he admits that he agrees with my last edition but after I was punished.

Decline reason:

I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Kuru (talk) 22:27, 5 August 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.

Unblock request comment

I was not looking at changes to the Euthanasia talk page or the current version during the noticeboard thread because that does not change whether you violated WP:3RR or whether you had been going against consensus (see WP:Consensus). I do think that you have been helpful, but your insistence on certain edits without proper discussion has been counter-productive. It is important to make sure you follow Wikipedia rules in the future.--Jorfer (talk) 22:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course it changed the situation as your edition was restored by me once you advised me of the possibly 3rr, and the consensus was kept as I never deleted but just moved your editions to another part of the article but once you complained I immediately replaced them in the lead (for sure I made some other changes, but as you again were not happy then I also kept your wording exactly as it was but just broke the paragrpah in two parts and kept it in the lead and asked if that was finally ok for you and for Bilby, and seems that you agree with that now). Notice that I never deleted your editions and I even restored immediately as far as you complained (for sure firstly I deleted Gabbe's editions because I was concerned of the missusing of the legal terms and same as you I could not access the source she put). Therefore what you call 3rr and been against consensus were my attempts to organize the article keeping your edition and improving that very long paragraph breaking it into two parts. And for your advise: for me it would be very easy to learn the rules of wikipedia or any rule but perhaps you will spend a lot of time and efforts to be gentle and to have some patience, or perhaps no. But, also for sure: it really doesn't matter much to me. -- PepitoPerez2007 (talk) 23:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I never said it did not change the situation. It doesn't change that laws were broken. Does fixing the results of broken law mean that it was OK to have been broken in the first place? Judicially, (interesting tie in) this would never stand. You steal a purse, you can still be held under criminal charges even if you return it. WP:3RR does say that attempts to remedy the situation our recognized, but 3RR was not the only issue here and by the time the discussion begins on the noticeboard, it is considered to late to correct your action. Whatever the case, you may not have realized this, but I was warned by the same user about edit warring. I had to make sure that the issue was resolved. It would have been easier to ignore 3RR if it was not for you going against consensus on Gabbe's edits. You failed to explain and convince the rest of the editors how Gabbe was misusing terminology. This is the statement "Homicide can be classified into lawful (non-criminal) and unlawful (criminal) types. Depending on jurisdiction homicides such as killing another person in self-defense, capital punishment or euthanasia can be either criminal or non-criminal." Nothing here was so urgent that consensus building had to wait. These statements include legal and non-legal terminology. As other user have explained and pointed to policy, there is nothing in Wikipedia that says that legal classification cannot be described using common terminology. Maybe now you can explain the problem with the statement were you have failed to before. Other users have encouraged you to fix/point out the mistakes you see in the statement rather than removing it. I want to be patient with you, but you have to be patient in building consensus. You are only blocked for 72 hours. Notice, I am not editing the article now either. The block will give some time to come back with cool heads.--Jorfer (talk) 03:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, you demand to understand some terms, it means: a position. Well, yes, murder remains being murder even if the doctor is not punished and even if he (or she) considers himself (or herself) to be a good guy deserving the good heaven, it means: killing very good. So, don't you bother, but what anyone thinks about himself doesn't matter at all to my head perhaps because it is very coooool now and before, it means: well skilled to difference facts from propaganda. But also my hot head is necessary to keep myself accurate, it means: well sharpened. -- PepitoPerez2007 (talk) 04:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

As the other users have pointed out homicide does not equal murder. Manslaughter is homicide, but it is not murder, for example.--Jorfer (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Why are you so worried about that? I hope you are not planning to kill someone in order to invent a new euphemism before a judge (I'm joking, for sure). But if you are getting bothersome, you should notice that -also for sure: one of those users is user:Gabbe, who likes to put sentences allegedly based on sources [4] that you -Jorfer- are unable to read, as you complained [5], and is also user:Gabbe who undoubtedly looks for legal minutiaes to justify and to excuse the killing of paragraphs although it taked a lot of human time and effort to get a consensus and a wording for them [6]. -- PepitoPerez2007 (talk) 22:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• The point is that you have been unable to make a correct argument against the context that Gabbe added and that is why the edits were rejected by the other editors.
• It is not against Wikipedia policy to put sources that others cannot access, but the editor needs be able to state how the source backs up the statement when asked (with a direct quote perhaps). It is less important when other sources are mentioned as is the case here. So I see what you did: you put "Homicide is always a criminal offense although it could be not liable to punishment" between the sources and the first sentence of the 2nd paragraph even though those 3 sources were not the sources for your statement, so that statement was unsourced, and I was right to revert you per WP:RS; thanks for clearing that up.
• It is accepted practice to clear up vagueness, so Gabbe's concern was a valid. It was not important enough to eliminate the entire paragraph (I agree with you there), but part of Wikipedia is coming to an agreement on what should be done in the article. You got it in there eventually. It is sometimes difficult to make changes to pages; there was never a guarantee that it would be easy. The fact that Euthanasia is such a sensitive and controversial topic makes this more so.--Jorfer (talk) 00:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I feel you are obssesed with rules and laws, and just now I remembered that I read somewhere that it could be diagnosed as a sort of fetichism; but those are my feelings and memories, not well sourced here, so don't you worry and feel free yourself to be like you like to be. I already wrote my public point and my public position: murder remains being murder even and worst when the perpetrator is a doctor. I'm not discussing that point here nor everywhere. But I can say some facts against your singular "points": After I read the Gabbe's source I clearly said that -by the source- euthanasia was not classified as lawful homicide as Gabbe wrote, but -by the source- other types of homicide were classified as lawful homicides [7], so I reverted her (his) edition. And such as murder remains being murder, you remain assuming false assumptions and of course (of course?) you seem very prone to use those false assumptions in favor of you and against of me; should I call that kind of psicological expressions and characters: private proclivity, in order to highlite its relationship with the private property; a fundamental relationship with the private property which also has the ruling law but also any fetichism?. Well, returning to your very singular (private?) point: how can you know that my statement is not sourced while you -not me but you- have confessed that you -not me but you- have not read the Gabbe's source, the same source which - after I read it- I used to source my edition and to revert Gabbe's edition, but I did not initiate a trial in the Adminnoticeboard to punish her (him) because I thought the point was that she(he) misunderstood the source and she(he) was confused with the legal terms as I said in the discussion page? For your side: are you confessing that you asummed bad faith against me and reverted me without reading the source and pushed a punishment against me and now you are trying to justify your misdoings? but don't misunderstand me: I really don't matter about your soul as I certainly know that the real ruling soul is nothing else but the money, unfortunately, but not forever and not in everybody. -- PepitoPerez2007 (talk) 03:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course, that is possible, but if that was your intention than you should have left the sources for the first statement and copied them for the second statement here [8]. Well, the second source was easily accessible and that did not support your statement, so the conclusion I came to was a reasonable one; it is not meant to be a definite conclusion. That, however, only gives me more of a reason for the revert, as it was your unjustified removal of the context of the usage of the term homicide ("This does not mean that both passive and active euthanasia..." in [9]). Gabbe's edits never claimed that euthanasia was lawful homicide; it just pointed out that the term "homicide" included that designation (whether it is a legal term is irrelevant). You keep acting like my opinions on Euthanasia influence the way Wikipedia editors deal with the article. Let me make this clear, because a lot of people do not realize this: Wikipedia is not a blog. Wikipedia is like a mirror. It is simply a reflection of society; no more and no less. As WP:V says, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. I am very careful when editing topics I have strong opinions on, because it is more difficult to maintain WP:NPOV on those topics. If you want to change the status quo (which may justify a change to Wikipedia) , there are plenty of free blog sites out there, but Wikipedia is not a place to.--Jorfer (talk) 01:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Misperception is around everybody, but it seems clearly enough that you haven't understood the issue about Gabbe's source: as I've read it, that source says nothing about euthanasia; therefore: or she (in good faith) was mistakenly attributing to the source her own conclusion about euthanasia or I was reading wrong. In any case: something corrigible and reversible, so you ask Gabbe for it, as I already did although I never got an answer. We are tied, you haven't understood that issue and I either couldn't understand your requirement: are you pleading me to be impressed but not to touch your status quo? Well, anyway, although you could get bothersome and misundesrtand me, I have to answer and I have to do it in my own style because -I'm sorry but- I'm not your distorted mirror reflex. I guess that false and serial impression could be a symptom of the private proclivity, because private property is always causing such sort of illusions. But indeed, I'm not blogging nor discussing in this wikipedia, not even now, proof: just take my editions which are always full of verifiable and reliable sources and compare them with my radical public position (for example on euthanasia) which nevertheless is not less well based and grounded, and also notice that I am aware that my editions in wikipedia can't be more than a really very distorted reflex of my position, but that is not my fault, but Wikipedia's context fault. So you can be sure I'm not blogging if I tell you that I do prefer my sphere of influence even if punished, rather than the chaotic and noxious reality. So, now my last word against your false interpretations and assumptions: I did not deleted the context but I've just moved that paragraph to the part which deals with the legal status of euthanasia because I've considered it better fitted there [10] although I've been aware that snooping doctors are able to dig very deep inside because illness scare them with not less depth; but as soon as you complained I just kept it at the lead and made other changes which I've considered to be useful [11] and split that long paragraph in two parts for the same reason [12]. But you were already invocating rules, laws and punishments against me, oh sorry, not against me but indeed against your distorted mirror reflex, which for sure is also the reflex of all the society. But let me also confess in good faith, that I'm getting bored to repeat what I really did, while you seem unable to believe or even to see that here is something different than your own phantoms. So I think I will take the good advise: I will leave wikipedia forever since now, and be sure that it would be a true question: have I ever been here?. -- PepitoPerez2007 (talk) 02:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)