User talk:Róbert Gida

An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sockpuppet of Multiplyperfect (talk · contribs · logs).
Please refer to the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer, and editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. This policy subsection may be helpful.

Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

If you want leave here a message for me!

December 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. ~ DC (Talk|Edits) 02:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noting some issues

Several editors have commented that this account appears to be a WP:SOCK, based on similarity with some other disruptive accounts editing at Talk:Barack Obama. If you have previouly edited under a different account name, please acknowledge, and stop if that account is currently blocked or banned from editing. If not, please be aware that you are taking the wrong approach as a new single purpose account that seems to exist solely for rapid-fire proposals to add to the Obama article negative events from the world at large with an attribution that they are Obama's fault. I am removing this pointless accusation from the talk page.[1] Do not use the Obama talk page to launch accusations against other editors. If you continue, at some point one of us will ask for administrative nintervention and this account will be blocked from further editing the encyclopedia. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the mentioned several editors????? Please don't lie! Róbert Gida (talk) 19:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"If you continue, at some point one of us will ask for administrative nintervention " And this sentence is also a clear personal attack. Róbert Gida (talk) 19:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please name another user who claimed sockpuppet case! Róbert Gida (talk) 22:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a clear typo. Beyond that, I won't play that game. The subject is your editing, not me. Please stop adding stuff like this[2] to the talk page. The talk page is not for posting your random pot-shots at the president, it is for discussing viable proposals to improve the article. Have you edited under any of these accounts? // removed - Wikidemon (talk) 05:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, but this is again a simple personal attack. Please keep the wikipedia rules. Róbert Gida (talk) 08:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for As a probable sockpuppet, contentious SPA, who certainly responds poorly to reasoned inquiries.. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Jclemens (talk) 19:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

Sorry but I see no proof that this is sockpuppet. I know that wikipedia!=democracy but it would be good to follow the democratic rules when you block a user. It is only a simple personal attack.

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=Sorry but I see no proof that this is sockpuppet. I know that wikipedia!=democracy but it would be good to follow the democratic rules when you block a user. It is only a simple personal attack. |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=Sorry but I see no proof that this is sockpuppet. I know that wikipedia!=democracy but it would be good to follow the democratic rules when you block a user. It is only a simple personal attack. |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=Sorry but I see no proof that this is sockpuppet. I know that wikipedia!=democracy but it would be good to follow the democratic rules when you block a user. It is only a simple personal attack. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}