User talk:Anton dvsk

I am Nefesf9.

September 2010

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. JNW (talk) 22:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop blanking the article--it appears to have reliable sources, including the link to his family's museum, with supporting biographical material. Please use the article's talk page to discuss your concerns. JNW (talk) 22:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits.
The next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. JNW (talk) 22:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Vandalism. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:19, 3 September 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).

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

Request reason:

The article Paulius Galaunė is a hoax. Most of the information is made up, and the pictures are by other people and stolen off the internet (eg. [1] (copyright problems). Please unblock me so I can remove the lies.

Decline reason:

The image in question has been removed - thank you for pointing that out - however, the majority of the rest of the article appears well referenced, and there's no indication that this is a hoax. If nothing else, the museum named for him should establish his notabilty. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:34, 3 September 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

see below

Decline reason:

Besides the link to the family museum page, the Library of Congress corroborates this book entry. I'm seeing no evidence for your claim that this is a hoax. I am removing your talk page access. Goodbye.--Chaser (talk) 22:52, 3 September 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.

why am I being blocked for acting in good faith ? the same guy wrote all of it. If he hoaxed one picture, he probably hoaxed it all, with the refs. The photo is probably fake too - the guy rewrote the commons description a while back. unblock me, and we can sort out the article. [2]}} why am I being blocked for acting in good faith ? the same guy wrote all of it. If he hoaxed one picture, he probably hoaxed it all, with the refs. The photo is probably fake too - the guy rewrote the commons description a while back. unblock me, and we can sort out the article. [3]

I have asked a couple of bilingual editors for help here; if you're correct in the end I'm sure we'll all be apologizing. You would not have been blocked if you weren't repeatedly blanking the page, though, so I can't really say the block is unjust even if it turns out you were right all along. —Soap— 23:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Lithuanian version has been displayed since 2006, and was created and edited by quite an experienced editor, with what looks like a talk page free of any warnings. http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=lt&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Flt.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FPaulius_Galaun%25C4%2597 Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You posted a question at Wikipedia:Help desk#Where do I report hoaxes ? but you ignored the replies there and warnings here. You continued deleting large parts of the article with no reason for the removal in the edit summary and against Wikipedia's rules about how to treat suspected hoaxes. It seemed like blocking you was the only way to stop you and so far you haven't expressed willingness to follow Wikipedia rules. Acting in good faith is not enough if you keep breaking rules after they have been pointed out to you. By the way, one possibility among several is that the creator of the English article translated a correct Lithuanian article (which doesn't display the image you mention) and then added false claims to it. If a sourced page contains some false content then it isn't necessarily a complete hoax that should just be deleted without discussion. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing the wrong images and I am sorry that you got blocked. I removed the pictures. If I have time, I will try to research some of the facts in the article. most of it is true and supported by reliable online sources. Do you know specific items in the text (besides the pictures) that could be false? Renata (talk) 16:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He still has talk page access blocked and can't reply; did you mean to restore talk page access? Or even unblock him? I won't do anything until I'm sure of what you intended to do. —Soap— 18:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I intended to do. Ugh, I need to refresh my admin skills :( Renata (talk) 23:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To Anton: I dont know if youre still here, but if you are, Ive restored talk page access so you can still talk. —Soap— 17:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

False information in the Galaune article

This is for you Renata, if you're going to try and sort this mess out. False information:

"His father, Andrius Galaunė was a minor figure in the local civil service, and his mother Gabija Adamkienė was the daughter of a local notary. Galaunė was at first home schooled by his mother, but from 1901 to 1908, he attended the Jesuit Gymnasium in Vilnius, staying with his uncle, who was a lawyer" - seems to be all made up.
" His studies were interrupted by World War I – he fought in the Imperial Russian Army for the whole duration of it, although he missed most of the campaigns of 1915 because of a shrapnel wound to his thigh." - I didn't think he fought at all - "thigh wound" bit certainly made up.
"In 1925, four paintings and one sketch by Galaunė were exhibited in the inaugural exhibition of the Bologna Museum of Modern Art, Italy. " - details made up, though he did exhibit in 1925.
"originally, Galaunė painted in a fairly traditional manner, although strongly influenced by folk art and fauvism. Galaunė's later artwork of the 1960s and 1970s became increasingly abstract, and was regarded as nonconformist. For this reason, many paintings such as the untitled work pictured were not displayed publicly until after the artist's death" - made up. Galaune was influenced by folk art, but was never censored. Untitled picture shown (since removed from the article) was not by Galaune (probably photo-edit of another painting).

Rest is all true, but I would remove it all just to be safe. Thanks, and please unblock me. Anton dvsk (talk) 18:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will remove those bits. Do you have some proof or are you just guessing? Where did he exhibit in 1925? I have little faith in the article myself, but I was unable to find something that would directly contradict the statements. BTW, how did you find that the image was false? Thanks, Renata (talk) 20:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the article about a week ago, and the art was really not like Galaune at all (I saw some of his paintings at an exhibition a while back). I put the image through reverse-image search engines with no results, so I just Googled some related terms (I think "folk art" painting), and it was on the fourth or fifth page. I don't have any sources to contradict those statements, but as we can't check them through the internet, and some seem unlikely (Galaune didn't have much of a reputation in Europe at the time, so why would four of his works be exhibited at the inaugural exhibition of a large gallery ? He became famous in the 30s. ). The stuff about his family is very dubious. Overall, I haven't check everything, but because all the images are fake, I suspect most of the content is a hoax. I think he did exhibit at the BMOMA in 1925, but not in the inaugural one, and it was just one work. BTW, do you know if the article on the museum's website is based on the wiki article ? It might not be a good idea to use it to check things if it is, and it may well be. The stuff about him studying neurology sounds suspicious. Anton dvsk (talk) 20:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Museum's website is very old, predates Wiki entry by several years. I thought neurology was weird too, I did look into it. It checked out. That's the issue with this article that Internet sources have only very basic info, so without having a copy of the monograph it quite hard/impossible to verify. Renata (talk) 20:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suspect most of the information is taken straight from the website, and the cites to the monograph are fake, although I've got no way of telling. There's just too much forgery elsewhere for them to be real. Has anyone contacted the user who made the article ? Anton dvsk (talk) 15:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So apparently you deserve a barnstar. Oh well. Renata (talk) 21:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

Hi, I've been blocked for "vandalism", because I was blanking an article I believed to be a hoax. However, your policy on vandalism (WP:VANDALISM) says that "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism." I accept that it was stupid of me to ignore the warning and continue removing the information, but I would like to be unblocked, and I think the block was not well considered, because I haven't actually been trying to damage the encyclopeadia, just remove false information. Thanks.

Decline reason:

If, as you say, you were acting in good faith, then I accept that "vandalism" was the wrong word. However, whatever wording was used, the block was and still is justifiable. You showed no interest in cooperating with other editors, and ignored advice which you had requested. You four times deliberately took steps to get round Wikipedia's processes, by removing the entire article content piece by piece when you were prevented from blanking the article in one go. None of your comments on this page, including your unblock requests, indicate any intention of changing your ways. Your unblock requests are based on two principals: (1) You are "right" and therefore don't need to consider what other editors think, and (2) there were procedural defects in the block, because "vandalism" was not an accurate description. Is an editor with a past history of using tricks to get round procedures likely to be trustworthy in the future? Possibly, but it is up to that editor to give us reason to think so: we should not assume that he/she will reform. Have you indicated that you intend to reform? No. Have you indicated that unblocking you would benefit Wikipedia? No. Was "vandalism" the right word? Perhaps not, but it doesn't matter, as you should be blocked anyway, whether or not you acted in good faith. Whose fault was it that your edits were done in a way that certainly looked like vandalism, leading the blocking administrator to use that word? Yours. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:18, 5 September 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.

Please note that four different administrators have decided you should be blocked (the blocking admin and three reviewers of your unblock requests). You are free to make more unblock requests, but if you do so without adding substantive new reasons for doing so then there is a possibility that an administrator will decide you are wasting our time and will remove talk page access. I therefore strongly recommend not making further unblock requests without making sure that you are not just repeating your old statements, but have genuinely new reasons to suggest. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request.

I don't like the fact that I'm actually helping Wikipedia (by pointing out a hoax), but I've been banned for "vandalism". I think you are only allowed to ban according to policy, and this is against policy - I am trying to sort things out - if my method was wrong, and I ignored warnings, I'm sorry, but it's unfair to block me. Anton dvsk (talk) 19:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking you was the only way to get you to stop, since you were ignoring warnings. If you hadn't been blocked, you would have continued blanking the page without clear explanations- the only reason you explained what you were thinking seems to be the block. If you want to be unblocked, you can't simply point out that you were right about the article- you were, but no one else had any way of knowing that based on the information you gave. You can't simply blame the administrators for acting improperly- they didn't; they acted to prevent disruption. If you want to request unblocking, you must give some evidence that you have a plan for making edits in the future that will make the encyclopedia better, and that you understand the rules well enough to do that without causing disruption. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to consider unblocking you. I think you were trying to do the right thing, just the wrong way and hot-headiness got in the way. I would place you under "parole" and would "babysit" your edits. That's if you promise:

to behave and follow the policies
to calmly discuss any edits that could be considered controversial few days in advance (note that it might take a few days to get a response)
to ask and listen to advice on how to handle difficult/controversial matters (before you get in trouble)
to listen to all warnings and stop doing whatever you are doing (even if you know you are right)

Please understand that if you get in trouble again, you will be blocked again -- and this time for ever. Renata (talk) 21:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll promise to do these things. I'll see if I can find something useful to do, although I don't really want to write articles. Anton dvsk (talk) 15:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I am going to unblock you. Please play nice. Renata (talk) 17:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock #2059568 lifted or expired.

Request handled by: Hersfold ^(t/a/c)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Ok, so this account is now blocked permanently. I am not surprised that you are user:Nefesf9. Did make any other accounts? And, out of complete curiosity, why did you do this? Some kind of social experiment? Idle curiosity? Renata (talk) 22:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No other accounts. "Social experiment" is possibly the right word, but I'll give no further details. Sorry for wasting your time. Anton dvsk (talk) 22:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Were you acting alone? Or this is a wider "conspiracy"? :) Renata (talk) 01:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]