Jump to content

User talk:PepitoPerez2007

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by PepitoPerez2007 (talk | contribs) at 03:40, 7 August 2010 (→‎Unblock request comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Why are you so worried about that? I hope you are not planning to kill someone 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
After I read the Gabbe's source I clearly said that euthanasia was not classified as unlawful homicide as Gabbe wrote but only other types of homicide [7], so I reverted her (his) edition. And as murder remains being murder you remains libeling against me. The point is: how can you know that my statement is not sourced while you -not me but you- confessed that you yourself haven't read the Gabbe's source, the same source which - after I read it- I myself 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 that the pint was she misunderstood the source and was confused with the legal terms as I said in the discussion? 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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PepitoPerez2007&oldid=377590363"