User talk:Opertof
November 2008
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Pioneer Courthouse Square has been reverted, as it appears to introduce incorrect information. Please do not intentionally add incorrect information to articles; use the sandbox for testing. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Faradayplank (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
The recent edit you made to Pioneer Courthouse Square constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. (ESkog)(Talk) 22:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
A more personal message
[edit]Opertof, the issue at Pioneer Courthouse Square has been discussed extensively in the archives linked from the article's talk page. Please review that.
Regardless of whether or not you are a sock puppet of the previous editor, the position you're taking is something that goes against an overwhelming consensus. If you make the edit again without an attempt to discuss, I will block you from editing. -Pete (talk) 22:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Reply to talk page message
[edit]I no understanding. What I do wrong? Why you threat me to block? I help user that get bad treated. I keep do what I think right thing doing is. I no care if you threat me to block. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Opertof (talk • contribs) 22:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- A large number of editors have weighed in on this question, and the consensus is very clear. If you believe you have a point to make that has not been made before, bring it up on the article's talk page. But do not add the content to the article itself, due to the strong consensus expressed. -Pete (talk) 22:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Blocked
[edit]Sandstein 22:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Opertof (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I respect what I told. Peteforsyth tell me not edit Pioneer Courthouse Square article no more and I stop to edit it! But other person block me anyway! I new user from Germany! I no know what problem with article is. I try to help user that get treated bad. Then I get treat bad too! Please to unblock me and explain to me why I get block even when I respect what I told from Peterforsyth. This unfair. How can you check where I from? I let you to check!P
Decline reason:
This does not address the reason you were blocked, which is the abuse of multiple accounts. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
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.
Opertof (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I no understand! I no have other account! Please to check IP address to compare with other account! This big misunderstand. This first time I use wikipedia english and I treat very bad. Please to ask Peteforsyth to discuss with me why I block. I have no abuse multiple account. This is new account. I new user. You no review my explain. I have no other account so how can i abuse multiple accout? I respect what peteforsyth tell me for to do.
Decline reason:
Looking at the article's history and your history, I'd say it's pretty obvious that you're using multiple accounts to evade blocks. The same fate will befall any more accounts you create for this purpose. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
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.
You must understand how bad this looks. You showed up to edit the page three minutes after creating an account, and only a hour and a half after it was opened for editing. What sounds more likely, for a new user from Germany to register for the sole purpose of editing an article about a town square in Oregon to reinforce an opinion of a banned user, or that you are that user, and you made a new account when you saw that the protection ran out?
If you are a new user, however, answer this: how did you become interested in this article, and why do you think it needs the statements you laid out? Templarion (talk) 22:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
It no important what likely or not is likely. What important is I no relation to "sockpuppet." I interest in article because I travel to Oregon 5 year ago. I visit Pioneer Courthouse Square so have interest in Pioneer Courthouse Square. That first article I see on Wikipedia and I read that other editor treated bad! So I help! Then I ban even after I stop make edit! If I relate to "sockpuppet" then why I new user? You check where I from! Check IP address or something. I no relation to "sockpuppet". I new user from Germany. I no want to make abuse. I want back my account so I can edit again. I have no interest in disrupt.
- Here's the problem with your claim: the only users treated badly were the ones who removed the content that you attempted to restore. The only users to have ever claimed that the person adding it was "other user treated badly" have been proven sockpuppets of that user. That user has harassed and manipulated Wikipedia for over two years in an attempt to force his point of view into the article. He was not attempting to work things out in good faith; he blatantly lied and continued to attempt manipulation to get his way. Also, per community consensus, there's simply no compelling reason to add the content - as is blatantly obvious by reading the talk page archives.
- As to your edits, you attempt to restore the content from the sockpuppet, you edit war identically to how the sockpuppet performed, you refer to the sockpuppet as "other user treated badly" which is identical to claims made by the sock in past edits when pretending to be a third party. Your actions to date are contrary to your claims. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Opertof (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Please please please to unblock me! I no mean harm! This my only account, I swear of it. You check my ip! I no sockpuppet and I sorry if I disrupt! This my username is my favorite name. If I ban then I no able to use name no more! I no abuse multiple account. Someone has explain of me that I seem suspect. This becuase I visit Oregon 5 years ago and I interest in Pioneer Courthouse Square. So when I edit Wikipedia this first article I to edit! I edit like sockpuppet becuase I think he was bad treated. But now I know he the bad one. Please please to unblock!
Decline reason:
Let's see--your first edit was to an article's talk page, inserting the same opinion of an indefblocked user. Either you are that user, or you're editing on his behalf. Either way, a blockable offense. Block endorsed and talk page protected. — Blueboy96 22:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
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.