User talk:Anonimu/Complete Works/Tom 5 (2022): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:41, 25 August 2007

Disclaimer

Apart from this disclaimer, this talk page should remain Empty, so any message posted here will probably be deleted without being read. To prevent this, I recommend you to post your comments according to the indications below:

1. Comments related to article content

This is not the place for them. Every wikipedia page has a Talk Page. If you are unhappy with my edits, or if you want clarification and want to suggest improvement, press Discussion on the top of the respective page and express your concerns. This way, more people will see your comments and perhaps they will be able to help you more.

2. Warnings

Don't place them here. Pick a random page (preferably a talk page) and place your warning there. Admins will consider that I have been warned, so no need to ruin my Talk page.

3. Blocks

If you're an Admin and you have blocked me, don't note it here. I'll surely notice it when I try to edit an article. If you want to show others how powerful you are, there's always my Block log. In case you want to give me the chance to ask for a review of my block, don't bother. Other Admins will most likely agree with you, and even the ones who think the block was unfair will do nothing about it. So why waste your time?

4. Personal comments

If you want to tell me something important, which is not related to one of the categories above, don't write here. Keep it for yourself. Of course, if you want to warn me about an imminent nuclear attack against South Eastern Romania, you could send me an e-mail. But only then. So please, no personal comments here.

5. Vandalism

Why vandalise this talk page that few people watch when you can vandalise the page of a country, a city, or a president? More people will notice you and you'll gain more fame.

Sincerely, Anonimu 10:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.

If an user couldn't understand the above, or felt the urge to write something, this is how should be dealt with his message:

1. If the message was put here by an IP or a suspected sock of User:Bonaparte, feel free to delete it.

2. If you put the message, you have all the right to delete it.

3. If it was put by someone else, I'm the only one who may delete it. If you do it, i'll consider it an act of vandalism and i'll report it accordingly.

No deleted message should be put back if it was deleted according to the guidelines above. Anonimu 22:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

I am going to answer your e-mailed question here; you may read it, delete it as you wish. You reverted three times on the article Nicolae Ceauşescu within a 24-hour period. No other editor did so within the same time frame. Please make comments about blocks within wikipedia, and please ask your friends not to canvass on this topic via e-mail. I have protected this page for 24 hours to give you a chance to read this message. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 14:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's not my "friend," and that wasn't canvassing. Anything I said via email can be made public at any time. Also, I unrprotected this page since being able to read its contents has no bearing on it being protected or not; if you had another purpose in mind, feel free to reprotect, but also, it would be prudent of you to specify what it is, outright. El_C 21:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will add that the blocked user had not done anything to merit his page being protected (that's since he has done nothing at all, has made no edits since the block was imposed), and, as I said to you via email, anything that resembles humiliating a blocked users is plain not allowed. El_C 21:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the light of this user's avowed intention to delete without reading all messages posted on this page, I instigated a very short protection, now expired, so as to ensure that he would read what was in my view a significant communication. He is now free, of course, to delete this whole correspondence, which is his right and privilege and with which I shall not interfere. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:48, 24 August 2007 (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).

Anonimu/Complete Works (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

abusive preventive block / in case of misunderstanding of policy by admin, preferential application of wiki policies

Decline reason:

In what way did you not violate WP:3RR? — Yamla 22:18, 24 August 2007 (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.

Blocking admin failed to bring evidence and the history of the article doesn't show any breach of 3rr.A nonimu 22:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to get into a "yes it does/no it doesn't" argument. If another admin feels that your block is inappropriate then I will not contest an unblock. But will not myself unblock, on the basis of the number of edits made in what is clearly an edit war. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's suppose i was involved in an edit war. what happened to equity? I did 3 rv, User:Sceptre did 3 rvs. Why was I the only one blocked? The only difference between our edits is that he was removing 3 references, i was putting them back. I'm an inferior user or what? At least decide and put a tag on my page: "This guy is just a piece of shit and should be blocked on sight".A nonimu 22:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have neither made that statement nor implied it. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For transparency's sake, I reported you to AIV for multiple POV reversions, which is vandalism, and Anthony most likely agreed. Will ^(talk) 22:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a misuse of that board, actually. El_C 22:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re Yamla, well, he technically did not violate 3RR. There are no four edits by Anonimu within any 24 hour window. Now, 3RR is not an entitlement. Whether his activity was rv warring in general that qualify for disruption (and block) is a separate matter. On a separate note, Anonimu has become a source of a huge harassment campaign lead by Bonaparte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) through IP's and sock accounts (check all new accounts that edited his page lately.) Also, Bonaparte from time to time submits false reports on Anonimu to various boards going as far as concocting the responses and signatures. Now, Sceptre revert wars at Anonimu's page. Have some sympathy to the guy who is being trolled so vigorously! --Irpen 22:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For my part, I am actually trying to do something about it. El_C 22:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that El_C. And appreciate very much. This pleas was not written with you as an addressee :) . --Irpen

As I say above, if another admin, such as El C wishes to unblock, that is fine by me. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No position on unblock. All I want is some even-handed approach towards Anonimu's opponents which certainly go beyond limit. And, also, do not block for 3RR when there was none of it. If you think there is enough under 3RR reverts to be classified "revert warring" = disruption = block, justify the blocks as such. Judgment blocks are acceptable but are a different league from vandalism or 3RR blocks which are almost always automatic. If he has to be blocked for another 24 hours, let it be so. I did not check the "content" of his 3 reverts but I note that the other side was obviously socking. --Irpen 23:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check the content then. It was me removing content in violation of WP:NPOV. Will ^(talk) 23:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which you are now the judge of? As someone who has actaully witnessed that trial-cum-execution, and who is by no means a supporter of Nicolae Ceauşescu, I can tell you that adding the "Kangaroo Court" as a description to that "trial-cum-execution" is not too controversial of a description. Are you even familiar with the material, or are you simply stalking Anonimu? It stops now. El_C 02:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 51: / Line 51: @@
 :No position on unblock. All I want is some even-handed approach towards Anonimu's opponents which certainly go beyond limit. And, also, do not block for 3RR when there was none of it. If you think there is enough under 3RR reverts to be classified "revert warring" = disruption = block, justify the blocks as such. Judgment blocks are acceptable but are a different league from vandalism or 3RR  blocks which are almost always automatic. If he has to be blocked for another 24 hours, let it be so. I did not check the "content" of his 3 reverts but I note that the other side was obviously socking. --[[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 23:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 ::Check the content then. It was me removing content in violation of [[WP:NPOV]]. '''[[User:Sceptre|Will]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]])</sup> 23:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
+:::Which you are now the judge of? As someone who has actaully witnessed that trial-cum-execution, and who is by no means a supporter of Nicolae Ceauşescu, I can tell you that adding the "Kangaroo Court" as a description to that "''trial''-cum-execution" is not too controversial of a description. Are you even familiar with the material, or are you simply stalking Anonimu? It stops now. [[User:El C|El_C]] 02:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)