Jump to content

User talk:Crovata

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Crovata (talk | contribs) at 05:21, 11 March 2017 (→‎Branimir Štulić). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

ヰキプロジェクト琉球

はいさい, Crovata! I've noticed that you've contributed to the subject of Ryūkyū. I invite you to join WikiProject Ryūkyū, AKA the Ryukyu task force, a collaborative effort to expand and deepen coverage of subjects pertaining to Ryūkyūan geography, history, and culture. Here are a few links to pages to start you off:

I hope you'll take interest and decide to be a part of this project. めんそーれ! ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sturmgewehr88: thank you for the invitation. How currently have several articles of primary personal interest to create and edit, will join the project soon as possible, although a month could pass in the meantime.--Crovata (talk) 13:16, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Take your time! ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Kačić noble family

The article Kačić noble family you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Kačić noble family for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Calvin999 -- Calvin999 (talk) 17:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You may make no more than one revert every 24 hours to a page within the Balkans topic area for a period of 6 months, subject to the standard exceptions

You have been sanctioned due to repeated violations of existing personal 1RR sanction

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. slakr\ talk / 02:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Željko Loparić

Hello Crovata! Thanks for your work on Špiro Kulišić. Recently Željko Loparić was rescued from deletion. Maybe it is something you would like to help expand? I saw another editor somewhere, who is Brazilian, I'll try to find him again and point him to that article. Loparić seems to be quite a name in Latin-American philosophy. Best, Sam Sailor Talk! 19:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Sailor I am not very familiar with philosophy, and must finish several historical articles have originally planned. It could be of interest and would gladly help, if anything else, at least with sources on Croatian language.--Crovata (talk) 20:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Editor's Barnstar
Excellent expansion work on Houston, We Have a Problem! Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anngelo

See my ANI post - I'm suggesting a topic ban or indef. Doug Weller talk 14:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Some IPs (or IP-hoppers) became active on Massagetae, Xionites and several other similar articles. For example 95.87.248.121 (talk · contribs) and 85.118.68.89 (talk · contribs). Are they related to sockmaster User:PavelStaykov? What do you think? Plus, if you're interested, please review those articles. Because I'm not sure about them. --Wario-Man (talk) 11:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wario-Man there's is similar discussion at AN, and as recently happened Staykov's sock activity (was not reported and documented everything in the investigation due to lack of time), especially if it is related with minor premise about the Yuezhi, Huns and so on, they could be, however his socks show specific behavior. Currently am unavailable to do a substantial review and edit of the articles. After three or four days will comeback and edit several nomadic articles. Until then a watch on the articles would be alright.--Crovata (talk) 22:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. --Wario-Man (talk) 07:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think these IPs/new accounts belong to same person. The edits on Yuezhi and Xionites are similar. All of them try to create a Turkic-only background for those Eurasian peoples. Creating a Turkic background for Yuezhi, then conncting other groups (Massagetae, Xionites and etc) to that Turkic Yuezhi. In my opinion, these IPs remind me of this long-term abuser Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Tirgil34. --Wario-Man (talk) 09:32, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Massagetae: diff --Wario-Man (talk) 09:39, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And this insult by this user is similar to them[1] --Wario-Man (talk) 20:20, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Wario-Man: this is not the right place to complain bro, actually Crovata is (according to your jargon) pro-turkic editor. You even don't understand what is going on these articles, simply because I added a couple of sentences that some aspects of the language of the Yuezhi could be explained from the Turkic language family doesn't mean that I consider them to be Turkic people. Also language != nationality. Everything points out that Yuezhi spoke unknown Indo-European language(probably remotely related to the Tocharian languages) heavily influenced by Turkic and Iranian languages. These people were nomads - they moved from place to place and their language acquired certain features from the languages of neighboring tribes. I was about to add this to the article but you cockblocked me bro. --46.229.227.121 (talk) 20:22, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blacorum

Hi, I noticed that you deleted an important part of the article Blacorum simply saying that it is an outdated source. Well, a historic source is a historic source, it is not outdated. To have a more clear article I budged and deleted historical sources (for example that of Villehardouin, Anonymus or King Andrew II) which mention the Blacs but those sources can refer to both the Blacs and the Vlachs. So please keep the present sources, because the present sources can not be understood as being refereed to the Vlachs because the Vlachs did not come from Bashkiria. The present sources are really important to understand this topic about the Blacs. I know it is a controversial subject, but let's keep it civil.Thank you. Arpabogar (talk) 14:56, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crovata, I am not edit warring. You shouldn't either. There is no need to put in "unsuccessfully" or "fallacious" or so on. I could also put in such quotes from the other side of the argument. There is no point to it. The article has to be presented unbiased and both sides can be presented in a normal manner. On the other hand I edited grammatical errors and I edited sentences because they were not written in an understandable manner or written in poor English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arpabogar (talk • contribs) 01:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can do WP:COPYEDIT (which doesn't mean removal of a sourced fact), but you don't understand Wikipedia WP:NPOV principles of editing. You cannot put such a quote from the other side of the argument, because that side is simply wrong. The article is presented according to NPOV, thus both sides cannot be given equal WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALANCE. --Crovata (talk) 02:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is funny that you mention that I do not understand WP:NPOV. Because I presented a balanced view of the topic so far. You are the one who is convinced that one side of the topic is wrong, which is ok, but still you have to present the article in a fair manner. You are not doing that, and by the way you were edit warring not me, because you reverted back three times what I added. I didn't twist anything in my edits I changed the grammatical errors and I took out the negative comments you entered. There is no need to it. Plus I made the text understandable because it was not in a few instances. The text of the article should be fluid and understandable, not just a collection of sentences from several sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arpabogar (talk • contribs) 02:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You don't understand what is WP:NPOV when you ignore scholars who clearly stated the the connection between the Bulaqs and Vlachs is wrong, the Rásonyi's thesis is wrong, and now even contradicting yourself that in the edit didn't add István Ferenczi who wasn't mentioned by the sources, remove author-link and publisher link, remove Spinei's statement about the Karluks, and two sentences by Vasary and Spinei.--Crovata (talk) 02:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is what I am saying that the article is not quotes from sources. It has to be a fluid text, of course it has to be based on sources which you refer to. But just because I added Ferenczi for example that didn't change the article or the source or the meaning of the sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arpabogar (talk • contribs) 02:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It didn't change the article, but it did change the source and the meaning of the sentence because he wasn't mentioned in them.--Crovata (talk) 02:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is not correct, because the sentence was not in quotes. If you want to quote someone then put it in quotation marks. But the article should not be a collection of quotes.Arpabogar (talk) 02:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the remark on J Peisker because that is simply not true. Rasonyi, Bodor, Ferenczi do not say that the Vlachs were Romanized Turks. J Peiskers theory is totally different so it does not belong here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arpabogar (talk • contribs) 14:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Learn to read English, of course that their theory is different (as it is between the Rasonyi and Ferenczi among others), by they cite him, and it is related according to sources. Your personal opinion is invalid.--Crovata (talk) 14:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It might be sourced, but it does not belong to the article. It does not help the understanding of the article at all.Arpabogar (talk) 14:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It does very well, it really helps to properly understand the theory - of course, you have a personal problem with several related statements (even intentionally removed them) because they discard the importance and validity of the theory. I will say again, learn what is Wikipedia, as your personal subjective opinion does not matter.--Crovata (talk) 14:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry I removed Madgearu's reference before. I read his book review you referred to and didn't find the sentence you were mentioning. After I saw that he has a Notes section in the article so I found it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arpabogar (talk • contribs) 16:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You found it and after all the discussion still (WP:ICANTHEARYOU) twist the facts that it is "definitely not an argumentation against the minority theory", as well "Vasary also has a sentence or a paragraph refering to the minority theory. He definitely does not refute it". I am sure that you're not sorry when come to make such an useless comment on my talk page when I became blocked. It is more than obvious.--Crovata (talk) 17:04, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Crovata. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

re Oghur edit warring

Anon may have been unwarranted in removing all four references over at Oghur languages (one holds up: Pritsak does in fact report that Hunnic has been sometimes considered Turkic), but it seems less than productive to call a report of failed source verification "disruptive" in itself, at least unless you have not yourself checked if the claim holds water. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 22:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tropylium, I originally edited those sources as they are specifically about the Oghuric language(s). According to your edits in which removed Granberg source and Pritsak reference, both sources are based on the work and old terminology used by Maenchen-Helfen (1970s) and Pritsak (1980s) for the language(s) today known as Oghuric.--Crovata (talk) 12:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

Hi, Crovata. Regarding this comment, you can't accuse someone of being a sockpuppet without evidence, and it's always wise to avoid commenting publicly on another editor's motivations. Unless you have evidence of sockpuppetry, it would be best to delete the last sentence of your comment. Kanguole 13:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kanguole his sock-puppets have the same behavior - in the recent reply he mentioned "these articles" (we both know each other from previous discussions on related articles), "Turk-" and "Peter Golden" (somehow he continues to call me a national Turk, which I'm not, and the same animosity goes for Golden, because the scholar proved the related people were Turkic speaking people and not Indo-Europeans). At the Kanasubigi article some IPs pushed Yuezhi information, while on the talk page in the reply he said "retard from other WP pages makes him the Greatest Vandal on Wikipedia of all time" and "Turkic terrorist".--Crovata (talk) 23:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 months for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Blacorum. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Katietalk 15:48, 4 December 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

I was reported at WP:AN3RR for several reverts which firstly I need to explain because not all of them were done within 24 hours or were even reverts. One on 1 December was a constructive edit, one on 4 December restored related and sourced information which was removed with the false explanation (see [2], [3]), while the others which were about the lead were done on 29 November, i.e. on 1 December [4], [5], and on 4 December [6], [7], [8].

I was blocked by admin KrakatoaKatie on the basis of this report (as well block log and certain sentence). I understand and am fully aware that made a mistake making myself involved into an edit-war (on the article Blacorum). I made a mistake because with my conduct I contributed to the current situation and edit war. My intention was in good faith, and to understand the "asinine "I will continue to do it [reverts] for the sake of Wikipedia" you need to understand the context. I said in affect, as several times ([9], [10], [11]) expressed my concern (about WP:ICANTHEARYOU) that the discussion in which I am involved to constantly again and again explain the same facts and principles is really becoming waste of my personal time and an irritation. I currently prepare several articles, and at the moment I hardly have time to work on them.

I understand that during a dispute we need first to discuss it and seek consensus. It was extensively discussed (as can be seen in the article's talk and deletion page) and we reached several conclusions like on reliable sources or that it was a refuted, fringe theory. Several discussions ("Review", "Simon of Keza", "Chronicum Pictum", "Intro") were opened by me. At the time I considered that through these discussions we managed to reach resolution on several points, but nevertheless on the top of that I started the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Blacorum (as according to WP:SEEKHELP). However, as remarked in the paragraph above, some editors still oppose(d) to it. At this point I made a mistake because in the need to move the discussion going forward on more important issues started to lose my patience and tried to force things. I thought the issue can be solved much quicker and better, and forgot that Wikipedia is a joint community effort. I want to continue with the discussion and dispute resolution because we need mutual acknowledgment to find a resolution for the article, and I need a chance to better understand, acknowledge and be patient because there will always be someone with an opposite opinion. I won't make the same mistake again.

As for the personal attack and incivility report you can find at WP:INCIDENT, I was accused for behavior I did not show. I guess it is due to lack of English language skill (and understanding of the topic issues) to cause it, like in the article's talk page e.g. when an editor assumed that I called him stupid, which I clearly did not.--Crovata (talk) 19:33, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

To consider unblocking you early, I'd want reassurances that you will follow 1RR from now on. PhilKnight (talk) 23:10, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PhilKnight From now on I will follow WP:AVOIDEDITWAR (One-revert rule) because I am fully aware that my previous use of reverts violated WP:3RR, as well they were counter-productive for the community as according to WP:ONLYREVERT. It is better to continue the discussion, seek informal and formal resolution and third opinion, rather than start and support an edit war, make hostility among the community, no matter how unwittingly in good faith. I won't make the same mistake again. My next short term step would be to continue the discussion and help find the resolution for the article, instead of making more than one or unnecessary revert, while long term step I will seriously reconsider my violation of the 3RR and start to follow One-revert rule on all articles and pages.--Crovata (talk) 10:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PhilKnight and KrakatoaKatie, it's been more than 20 days, but still did not get your reply to my answer. Due to the long block there several articles I construcitvely work on and thus cannot edit, as well seek protection for articles Dulo clan, Kanasubigi and Kidarites which are again disruptively edited (current revision, due to recent protection expiration) by to be reported IPs and user account User:Sabir Hun related to the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PavelStaykov. Like in the case of Dulo clan's recent history, many user editors are not familiar with this case and investigation and thus tend to support (in-good-faith) disruptive edits or seek discussion for revert of these edits although they were extensively disccused before. Hope for your soon reply.--Crovata (talk) 02:04, 28 December 2016 (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.

Notice

123Steller, DIY Editor, Borsoka, I have been blocked for 59 days by an administrator, KrakatoaKatie, who ignored the issue, misunderstood my words and intention, and believed KIENGIR's report, who managed to do what I previously expected - to remove me from the discussion and editing of the article so he and other two users, Arpabogar and Fakirbakir, can continue (Arpabogar already began) to do disruptive push of a fringe theory. I am warning you that, although we are dealing with an article of a minor importance and brink of deletion, for the sake of Wikipedia and its principles you must not allow that they get what they want, and show that such kind of disruptive behavior is not supported on Wikipedia. Thank you.--Crovata (talk) 16:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your block is certainly a loss for the debate from the Blacorum article, but you should try to stay calm and avoid engaging in edit wars. 123Steller (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:45, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 03:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

Hi, was indefinitely blocked for WP:SOCK violation i.e. abusing multiple accounts. I was fully aware that with the creation of multiple accounts I was violating the Wikipedian policy and that eventually it would be revealed and my action prevented for any further disruption to Wikipedia. Chronologically, previously on 4 December was blocked for 62 days, with expiration time dated until 4 February 2017, due to violation of 3RR (see User talk:Crovata#December 2016), which was in good faith and context in the sense on the article Blacorum was intentionally pushed undue weight and fringe information, but neverthless mine approach to the solution had a lack of patience and consideration for the community norms and policy, and I recognized it as such. I requested an unblock which was declined with an assertion for an early unblock if provided reassurances that I will follow 1RR from now on, which I did. At the time I expected an early unblock as considered the reason to be blocked was minor. It passed 20 days, there was no change in the block log or admin's reply, and in the meantime re-emerged disruptive edits related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PavelStaykov in few articles for which I could not seek protection template and revert the edits. Thus I warned the admins on 28 December about the issue and situation. Due to similar previous experience where was a lack of admin's action and consideration to, revert and protect the article by themselves or to unblock me so I could seek revert and protection, understood that will nothing happen and situation was in support of the disruptive edits, that there was no concern about the public misunderstanding while reading the disruptively edited articles. Thus due to previous experience, and have to note extensive recent issues and pressure in personal life, caused a mixture of feelings and thoughts of disappointment, irresponsibility and revolt to the point that I considered to make a temporary sock account - a good solution. Thus on 30 December, I created sock account User:JoyceWood mainly in the intention of fixing the WP:DISRUPT and WP:SOCK editing, and thought of temporary doing constructive edits until main account Crovata is early unblocked. However as it was revealed with the pass of time, until 20 January, there was no consideration for what I considered "early" unblock. I was aware that editing of the same or similar articles could result with too much suspected attention, and later it eventually was recognized by CheckUser, I decided to avoid the primary intention and went to edit or create other articles; thus with the sock account JoyceWood I created Prima di Parlare and Unici (both later removed on 31 January per WP:G5), done extensive edits on Nek, Filippo Neviani, Un'altra direzione, some minor edits on the articles about language, as well football, extensively discussed at the Talk:Anatole Klyosov on content change and issues, for which it was sanctioned at WP:AE, and from 19 January, as understood there will be no early unblock by now (45 days passed), in the end edited few articles on which I previously warned about due to disruptive sock activity - the Dulo clan, Kanasubigi and Kidarites. The discussed and substantiated reverts at Talk:Kanasubigi#January 2017 caused reports ([12], [13], [14]) at noticeboards through which (CheckUser) was found connection between accounts JoyceWood and Crovata, resulting in an indefinite block, while on the articles were preserved revision which I proposed according to the Wikipedian policy. As according to WP:ILLEGIT, I did not create an alternative account to mislead, deceive, disrupt, or undermine consensus, however I am fully aware that it was an WP:EVASION and violation of the policy. The WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE is only partial as I did not intend nor make an imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia, except it was continuation of present, disruptive behavior, although in good and constructive faith as such I recognized it to be insufficiently considerate. I want to emphasize that I consider this and previous block to encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms for me. I took some time to reconsider everything what recently happened and I done, and only then write an unblock request. According to WP:INDEF, indefinite blocks are usually applied when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy, and that it is designed to prevent further disruption, and the desired outcome is a commitment to observe Wikipedia's policies and to stop problematic conduct in future. As according to Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Unblock requests, please consider that if users claim they wish to contribute constructively but there are doubts as to their sincerity, to give me a 2nd chance. I wish to continue editing Wikipedia and think am able to constructively contribute on several topics. I, although worked independently, want to join and contribute in WikiProjects like WP:HGH, WP:MA, WP:CRO and WP:JP. I understand and am aware that violated policy and disruptively behaviored, and promise will not do it again, instead want to constructively edit Wikipedia with considerate approach (WP:EXPECT) and editing style according to policy norm (e.g. WP:ONLYREVERT and WP:DISPUTE). I welcome any insight and advice, and WP:OFFER to wait at least six months without any sock/evasion/disruption until the block review. --Crovata (talk) 21:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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=Hi, was indefinitely blocked for [[WP:SOCK]] violation i.e. abusing multiple accounts. I was fully aware that with the creation of multiple accounts I was violating the Wikipedian policy and that eventually it would be revealed and my action prevented for any further disruption to Wikipedia. Chronologically, previously on 4 December was blocked for 62 days, with expiration time dated until 4 February 2017, due to violation of 3RR (see [[User talk:Crovata#December 2016]]), which was in good faith and context in the sense on the article [[Bulaqs|Blacorum]] was intentionally pushed undue weight and fringe information, but neverthless mine approach to the solution had a lack of patience and consideration for the community norms and policy, and I recognized it as such. I requested an unblock which was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Crovata&diff=prev&oldid=753056047 declined] with an assertion for an early unblock if provided reassurances that I will follow 1RR from now on, which I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACrovata&type=revision&diff=753130469&oldid=753056047 did]. At the time I expected an early unblock as considered the reason to be blocked was minor. It passed 20 days, there was no change in the block log or admin's reply, and in the meantime re-emerged disruptive edits related to [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PavelStaykov]] in few articles for which I could not seek protection template and revert the edits. Thus I warned the admins on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACrovata&type=revision&diff=756984534&oldid=754406366 28 December] about the issue and situation. Due to similar previous experience where was a lack of admin's action and consideration to, revert and protect the article by themselves or to unblock me so I could seek revert and protection, understood that will nothing happen and situation was in support of the disruptive edits, that there was no concern about the public misunderstanding while reading the disruptively edited articles. Thus due to previous experience, and have to note extensive recent issues and pressure in personal life, caused a mixture of feelings and thoughts of disappointment, irresponsibility and revolt to the point that I considered to make a temporary sock account - a good solution. Thus on 30 December, I created sock account [[User:JoyceWood]] mainly in the intention of fixing the [[WP:DISRUPT]] and [[WP:SOCK]] editing, and thought of temporary doing constructive edits until main account Crovata is early unblocked. However as it was revealed with the pass of time, until 20 January, there was no consideration for what I considered "early" unblock. I was aware that editing of the same or similar articles could result with too much suspected attention, and later it eventually was recognized by CheckUser, I decided to avoid the primary intention and went to edit or create other articles; thus with the sock account JoyceWood I created [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prima_di_parlare&action=history Prima di Parlare] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unici_(album)&action=history Unici] (both later removed on 31 January per [[WP:G5]]), done extensive edits on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nek&action=history Nek], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Filippo_Neviani_(album)&action=history Filippo Neviani], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Un%27altra_direzione&action=history Un'altra direzione], some minor edits on the articles about language, as well football, extensively discussed at the [[Talk:Anatole Klyosov]] on content change and issues, for which it was [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive208#JoyceWood|sanctioned]] at [[WP:AE]], and from 19 January, as understood there will be no early unblock by now (45 days passed), in the end edited few articles on which I previously warned about due to disruptive sock activity - the [[Dulo clan]], [[Kanasubigi]] and [[Kidarites]]. The discussed and substantiated reverts at [[Talk:Kanasubigi#January 2017]] caused reports ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=760957125], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=760953160], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=760961701]) at noticeboards through which (CheckUser) was found connection between accounts JoyceWood and Crovata, resulting in an indefinite block, while on the articles were preserved revision which I proposed according to the Wikipedian policy. As according to [[WP:ILLEGIT]], I did not create an ''alternative account to mislead, deceive, disrupt, or undermine consensus'', however I am fully aware that it was an [[WP:EVASION]] and violation of the policy. The [[WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE]] is only partial as I did not intend nor make an ''imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia'', except it was ''continuation of present, disruptive behavior'', although in good and constructive faith as such I recognized it to be insufficiently considerate. I want to emphasize that I consider this and previous block to ''encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms'' for me. I took some time to reconsider everything what recently happened and I done, and only then write an unblock request. According to [[WP:INDEF]], ''indefinite blocks are usually applied when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy'', and that ''it is designed to prevent further disruption, and the desired outcome is a commitment to observe Wikipedia's policies and to stop problematic conduct in future''. As according to [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Unblock requests]], please consider that ''if users claim they wish to contribute constructively but there are doubts as to their sincerity'', to give me a [[Template:2nd chance|2nd chance]]. I wish to continue editing Wikipedia and think am able to constructively contribute on several topics. I, although worked independently, want to join and contribute in WikiProjects like [[WP:HGH]], [[WP:MA]], [[WP:CRO]] and [[WP:JP]]. I understand and am aware that violated policy and disruptively behaviored, and promise will not do it again, instead want to constructively edit Wikipedia with considerate approach ([[WP:EXPECT]]) and editing style according to policy norm (e.g. [[WP:ONLYREVERT]] and [[WP:DISPUTE]]). I welcome any insight and advice, and [[WP:OFFER]] to wait at least six months without any sock/evasion/disruption until the block review. --[[User:Crovata|Crovata]] ([[User talk:Crovata#top|talk]]) 21:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC) |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=Hi, was indefinitely blocked for [[WP:SOCK]] violation i.e. abusing multiple accounts. I was fully aware that with the creation of multiple accounts I was violating the Wikipedian policy and that eventually it would be revealed and my action prevented for any further disruption to Wikipedia. Chronologically, previously on 4 December was blocked for 62 days, with expiration time dated until 4 February 2017, due to violation of 3RR (see [[User talk:Crovata#December 2016]]), which was in good faith and context in the sense on the article [[Bulaqs|Blacorum]] was intentionally pushed undue weight and fringe information, but neverthless mine approach to the solution had a lack of patience and consideration for the community norms and policy, and I recognized it as such. I requested an unblock which was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Crovata&diff=prev&oldid=753056047 declined] with an assertion for an early unblock if provided reassurances that I will follow 1RR from now on, which I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACrovata&type=revision&diff=753130469&oldid=753056047 did]. At the time I expected an early unblock as considered the reason to be blocked was minor. It passed 20 days, there was no change in the block log or admin's reply, and in the meantime re-emerged disruptive edits related to [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PavelStaykov]] in few articles for which I could not seek protection template and revert the edits. Thus I warned the admins on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACrovata&type=revision&diff=756984534&oldid=754406366 28 December] about the issue and situation. Due to similar previous experience where was a lack of admin's action and consideration to, revert and protect the article by themselves or to unblock me so I could seek revert and protection, understood that will nothing happen and situation was in support of the disruptive edits, that there was no concern about the public misunderstanding while reading the disruptively edited articles. Thus due to previous experience, and have to note extensive recent issues and pressure in personal life, caused a mixture of feelings and thoughts of disappointment, irresponsibility and revolt to the point that I considered to make a temporary sock account - a good solution. Thus on 30 December, I created sock account [[User:JoyceWood]] mainly in the intention of fixing the [[WP:DISRUPT]] and [[WP:SOCK]] editing, and thought of temporary doing constructive edits until main account Crovata is early unblocked. However as it was revealed with the pass of time, until 20 January, there was no consideration for what I considered "early" unblock. I was aware that editing of the same or similar articles could result with too much suspected attention, and later it eventually was recognized by CheckUser, I decided to avoid the primary intention and went to edit or create other articles; thus with the sock account JoyceWood I created [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prima_di_parlare&action=history Prima di Parlare] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unici_(album)&action=history Unici] (both later removed on 31 January per [[WP:G5]]), done extensive edits on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nek&action=history Nek], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Filippo_Neviani_(album)&action=history Filippo Neviani], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Un%27altra_direzione&action=history Un'altra direzione], some minor edits on the articles about language, as well football, extensively discussed at the [[Talk:Anatole Klyosov]] on content change and issues, for which it was [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive208#JoyceWood|sanctioned]] at [[WP:AE]], and from 19 January, as understood there will be no early unblock by now (45 days passed), in the end edited few articles on which I previously warned about due to disruptive sock activity - the [[Dulo clan]], [[Kanasubigi]] and [[Kidarites]]. The discussed and substantiated reverts at [[Talk:Kanasubigi#January 2017]] caused reports ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=760957125], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=760953160], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=760961701]) at noticeboards through which (CheckUser) was found connection between accounts JoyceWood and Crovata, resulting in an indefinite block, while on the articles were preserved revision which I proposed according to the Wikipedian policy. As according to [[WP:ILLEGIT]], I did not create an ''alternative account to mislead, deceive, disrupt, or undermine consensus'', however I am fully aware that it was an [[WP:EVASION]] and violation of the policy. The [[WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE]] is only partial as I did not intend nor make an ''imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia'', except it was ''continuation of present, disruptive behavior'', although in good and constructive faith as such I recognized it to be insufficiently considerate. I want to emphasize that I consider this and previous block to ''encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms'' for me. I took some time to reconsider everything what recently happened and I done, and only then write an unblock request. According to [[WP:INDEF]], ''indefinite blocks are usually applied when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy'', and that ''it is designed to prevent further disruption, and the desired outcome is a commitment to observe Wikipedia's policies and to stop problematic conduct in future''. As according to [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Unblock requests]], please consider that ''if users claim they wish to contribute constructively but there are doubts as to their sincerity'', to give me a [[Template:2nd chance|2nd chance]]. I wish to continue editing Wikipedia and think am able to constructively contribute on several topics. I, although worked independently, want to join and contribute in WikiProjects like [[WP:HGH]], [[WP:MA]], [[WP:CRO]] and [[WP:JP]]. I understand and am aware that violated policy and disruptively behaviored, and promise will not do it again, instead want to constructively edit Wikipedia with considerate approach ([[WP:EXPECT]]) and editing style according to policy norm (e.g. [[WP:ONLYREVERT]] and [[WP:DISPUTE]]). I welcome any insight and advice, and [[WP:OFFER]] to wait at least six months without any sock/evasion/disruption until the block review. --[[User:Crovata|Crovata]] ([[User talk:Crovata#top|talk]]) 21:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC) |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=Hi, was indefinitely blocked for [[WP:SOCK]] violation i.e. abusing multiple accounts. I was fully aware that with the creation of multiple accounts I was violating the Wikipedian policy and that eventually it would be revealed and my action prevented for any further disruption to Wikipedia. Chronologically, previously on 4 December was blocked for 62 days, with expiration time dated until 4 February 2017, due to violation of 3RR (see [[User talk:Crovata#December 2016]]), which was in good faith and context in the sense on the article [[Bulaqs|Blacorum]] was intentionally pushed undue weight and fringe information, but neverthless mine approach to the solution had a lack of patience and consideration for the community norms and policy, and I recognized it as such. I requested an unblock which was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Crovata&diff=prev&oldid=753056047 declined] with an assertion for an early unblock if provided reassurances that I will follow 1RR from now on, which I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACrovata&type=revision&diff=753130469&oldid=753056047 did]. At the time I expected an early unblock as considered the reason to be blocked was minor. It passed 20 days, there was no change in the block log or admin's reply, and in the meantime re-emerged disruptive edits related to [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PavelStaykov]] in few articles for which I could not seek protection template and revert the edits. Thus I warned the admins on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACrovata&type=revision&diff=756984534&oldid=754406366 28 December] about the issue and situation. Due to similar previous experience where was a lack of admin's action and consideration to, revert and protect the article by themselves or to unblock me so I could seek revert and protection, understood that will nothing happen and situation was in support of the disruptive edits, that there was no concern about the public misunderstanding while reading the disruptively edited articles. Thus due to previous experience, and have to note extensive recent issues and pressure in personal life, caused a mixture of feelings and thoughts of disappointment, irresponsibility and revolt to the point that I considered to make a temporary sock account - a good solution. Thus on 30 December, I created sock account [[User:JoyceWood]] mainly in the intention of fixing the [[WP:DISRUPT]] and [[WP:SOCK]] editing, and thought of temporary doing constructive edits until main account Crovata is early unblocked. However as it was revealed with the pass of time, until 20 January, there was no consideration for what I considered "early" unblock. I was aware that editing of the same or similar articles could result with too much suspected attention, and later it eventually was recognized by CheckUser, I decided to avoid the primary intention and went to edit or create other articles; thus with the sock account JoyceWood I created [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prima_di_parlare&action=history Prima di Parlare] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unici_(album)&action=history Unici] (both later removed on 31 January per [[WP:G5]]), done extensive edits on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nek&action=history Nek], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Filippo_Neviani_(album)&action=history Filippo Neviani], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Un%27altra_direzione&action=history Un'altra direzione], some minor edits on the articles about language, as well football, extensively discussed at the [[Talk:Anatole Klyosov]] on content change and issues, for which it was [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive208#JoyceWood|sanctioned]] at [[WP:AE]], and from 19 January, as understood there will be no early unblock by now (45 days passed), in the end edited few articles on which I previously warned about due to disruptive sock activity - the [[Dulo clan]], [[Kanasubigi]] and [[Kidarites]]. The discussed and substantiated reverts at [[Talk:Kanasubigi#January 2017]] caused reports ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=760957125], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=760953160], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=760961701]) at noticeboards through which (CheckUser) was found connection between accounts JoyceWood and Crovata, resulting in an indefinite block, while on the articles were preserved revision which I proposed according to the Wikipedian policy. As according to [[WP:ILLEGIT]], I did not create an ''alternative account to mislead, deceive, disrupt, or undermine consensus'', however I am fully aware that it was an [[WP:EVASION]] and violation of the policy. The [[WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE]] is only partial as I did not intend nor make an ''imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia'', except it was ''continuation of present, disruptive behavior'', although in good and constructive faith as such I recognized it to be insufficiently considerate. I want to emphasize that I consider this and previous block to ''encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms'' for me. I took some time to reconsider everything what recently happened and I done, and only then write an unblock request. According to [[WP:INDEF]], ''indefinite blocks are usually applied when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy'', and that ''it is designed to prevent further disruption, and the desired outcome is a commitment to observe Wikipedia's policies and to stop problematic conduct in future''. As according to [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Unblock requests]], please consider that ''if users claim they wish to contribute constructively but there are doubts as to their sincerity'', to give me a [[Template:2nd chance|2nd chance]]. I wish to continue editing Wikipedia and think am able to constructively contribute on several topics. I, although worked independently, want to join and contribute in WikiProjects like [[WP:HGH]], [[WP:MA]], [[WP:CRO]] and [[WP:JP]]. I understand and am aware that violated policy and disruptively behaviored, and promise will not do it again, instead want to constructively edit Wikipedia with considerate approach ([[WP:EXPECT]]) and editing style according to policy norm (e.g. [[WP:ONLYREVERT]] and [[WP:DISPUTE]]). I welcome any insight and advice, and [[WP:OFFER]] to wait at least six months without any sock/evasion/disruption until the block review. --[[User:Crovata|Crovata]] ([[User talk:Crovata#top|talk]]) 21:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Activity while blocked

Bbb23, you reverted saying "Not an appropriate use of your Talk page while blocked". According to WP:OPTIONS "editing of the user's talk page should be disabled only in the case of continued abuse of the talk page". I did not abuse nor continued to abuse my talk page. Why is it not appropriate? Because the unblock request was not reviewed yet, because of the standard offer? There's serious violation of policy at the article in question and it's disrupting Wikipedia. Why what is happening with Wikipedian editing is less important than what is happening with an editor account? --Crovata (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Branimir Štulić

FkpCascais, Vanjagenije, Tiptoethrutheminefield on 19 February 23 editor reverted (1) info which is out of scope, and reverted (2) wrong information about the "Serb origin" and "Zadar" descent of father at Branimir Štulić, removing other reliable sources and true information which showed his whole family originate in Nin and that they were not Serbs. All three of you ignored the talk page discussion Talk:Branimir Štulić#Serb where this issue was discussed, while 23 editor substantiated his edits with an unclear summary "rv Asdisis sock". To whom 23 editor referred as "Asdisis sock"? The revision history does not give any exact answer. The only editor who removed these information was - me. Did he make such a vague statement because I am blocked for WP:SOCK so it is superficially related? I only persume it, because the one who informed me and stated it was an IP on 26 February 2017. To be more specific, I remember very well that some IPs were considered as Asdisis socks by 23 editor at Talk:Davor Štefanek#Ethnicity, where in all surprise - 23 editor brought up the very same topic of Branimir Štulić and reliability of these sources, totally unrelated, where did not start a discussion to discuss the content change yet solely to personally attack me (WP:PERSONAL), openly supporting the reliability of these sources, although they have factually unverified and wrong information (which he "strangely" still ignores), and openly accused me for chauvinism i.e. that I considered these sources as unreliable on nationalistic basis i.e. because they were Serbian and "the assertions they support don't match [mine] POV", as I have somekind of unneutral-nationalistic intention and not neutral POV (so much about WP:GOODFAITH and WP:NPOV), while now he done the very same thing he falsely accused me. The information about ethnicity/nationality was removed from Davor Štefanek due to lack of notability (per WP:BLP, WP:NPOV) and the same criteria should be used at Branimir Štulić. However, what is more strange, he ignored recommendation from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive932#Uncivil behavior by 23 editor by Peacemaker67 to "compare and contrast reliable sources in the article rather than attempting to remove or discount a set of sources they don't agree with", since August 2016 for months, to unexpectedly revert and remove sources/information on 19 February, 2017 while I was indefinitely blocked. Simply, Nil Einne there was no incline source because 23 editor in his edit (19 February) changed the article revision in which removed several reliable sources, and later caused current situation, and even your removal of previously sourced information. Literally, to understand the whole issue follow the chronology.

Actually even further, note that on the same article on Serbian Wikipedia these same wrong claims and unreliable sources are solely used, ignoring NPOV, also seen from the revision history, and talk page discussions "Branimirov otac nije Srbin" (trans. "Branimir's fater is not a Serb") and "Štulićev otac je 100% Srbin" (trans. "Štulić's father is 100% Serb"), in which I discussed and although with all the evidence his father and family are not Serbs or of Serb origin, being the most recent discussions they were "strangely" archived - superficially removed from public view and any further continuation. The Serbian nationalistic ideological agenda on Serbian Wikipedia is more than obvious, but then I have to ask 23 editor, why he consciously removed reliable and neutral information and sources, added seemingly unreliable sources (not per se, but for the claim they make) and wrong information, ignored the talk page discussion, ignored the recommendation, as well reverted out of scope Štulić statements against Croatia and Croatian descent (which is another psychological topic per se, which in combination with a false claim that his father is a Serb make a fake impression he is not a Croat or of Croatian descent), basically copied the same and sub-standard Serbian Wikipedian agenda to the same article on English Wikipedia violating the NPOV and other principles? What even more worries me is the fact FkpCascais and Vanjagenije seemingly did not bother to check the discussion, reliability of the sources and credibility of the information, I suppose they believed in the credibility of 23 editor's edit summary. I want an explanation and immediate action. You should revert the article revision to 16 October 2016 before the subsquent edits by 23 editor on 19 February, because only then you will have a revision which is neutral enough, and not that controversial to Branimir Štulić and his legal spokesperson Zoran Živković, to discuss several topics. --Crovata (talk) 04:43, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Crovata&oldid=769710239"