| Revision as of 20:32, 7 July 2007 editGiovanni Giove (talk | contribs)3,770 edits →Why have you blocked me?← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:34, 7 July 2007 edit undoSteel (talk | contribs)20,265 edits →Why have you blocked me?: replyNext edit → | ||
| Line 84: | Line 84: | ||
| :Your block was for a clear 3RR violation: . Each reverted the preceeding edit, it doesn't have to be the same text reverted three times. No.13 does appear to have broken the 3RR too; I hadn't noticed that. Regardless, that was three days ago and no block for that now would be justified. If you feel people are ganging up on you, try finding an impartial mediator at ] or ] to help resolve the dispute. You'd been blocked three times previously; none of which were overturned. Without checking myself, I'm going to assume that they were valid, since 3RR blocks are usually swiftly overturned if it turns out there was in fact no violation. – ] 20:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC) | :Your block was for a clear 3RR violation: . Each reverted the preceeding edit, it doesn't have to be the same text reverted three times. No.13 does appear to have broken the 3RR too; I hadn't noticed that. Regardless, that was three days ago and no block for that now would be justified. If you feel people are ganging up on you, try finding an impartial mediator at ] or ] to help resolve the dispute. You'd been blocked three times previously; none of which were overturned. Without checking myself, I'm going to assume that they were valid, since 3RR blocks are usually swiftly overturned if it turns out there was in fact no violation. – ] 20:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::I forgot: even Zmaj broke the rule, just have a look. I have restored my version, and I am ready to discuss it. On my talk page you can read that admins recognized their errors about the 3RR. See and . Best regards.--] 20:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC) | ::I forgot: even Zmaj broke the rule, just have a look. I have restored my version, and I am ready to discuss it. On my talk page you can read that admins recognized their errors about the 3RR. See and . Best regards.--] 20:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :::Zmaj reverted three times. As for your previous blocks, you appear to be right. – ] 20:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:34, 7 July 2007
Click here to leave a new message| No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful) |
- Voluntary RfAs after resignation
- Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
- Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
- Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?
 Archives |
|---|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 |
Human Height and Unfreeride
Thanks for protecting the human height page from Unfreeride, though he is so persistent I fear that he'll be straight back at it.
He is working from a POV that Northern Chinese are the superior race, and has made many such statements to that effect, and bought arguements about race and intelligence into the human height article.
Also, he has made many ad hom attacks - accusing me of "dementia" being a "white supremacist" and a "troll", and "idiot", a "liar" and having 2 sock puppets.
His tactic in editing an article is to push his POV (in this case that Asians would be the tallest if not for X Y Z)and then heavily references his statement with irrelevent articles, that people either won't bother to read, can't read because they are in chinese, or find hard to delete because of how conviluted his edits become.
He violates just about every rule that wikipedia has, and I don't like the edit wars he is sure to begin on return. Check his contribs on other pages and you'll see human heiht is just the tip of the iceberg, he uses similar tactics on many pages with a similar agenda and even references his own statements to support subsequent POV pushing.
Rwlinda
Rwlinda whom you unblocked has immediately returned to spamming his/her own website again. IrishGuy 16:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- How disappointing. Note left on user talk, I'll reblock myself if it comes to that. – Steel 16:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but the site I link to used to have a link up there for I believe over a year and was removed because I thought it was ok to add additional links to films that star Robin Williams. I do not intend to add any other links, I only re-added this one, because it used to be there and I know it's being appreciated by a lot of people. Please advice (since the talk page doesn't seem to be very active)~. I also added some additional information to my talk page. Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks. --Rwlinda 18:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Your block to Giovanni Giove
There seems to be another user who did exactly the same revert to the Marko Marulić article here. Can this be his clone or are they ganged up together? Please check this out. --No.13 17:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
A small update. From the moment you blocked Giovanni Giove for edit warring and 3RR another user has appeared and he continues exactly the same edit wars and makes exactly the same reverts. He now completely replaced Giove in his edit wars on Giovanni Lucio, Marko Marulić and Giacomo Micaglia. Honestly I don't really consider this a coincedance, the possibility for something like that to happen is just huge. They are definately connected somehow. --No.13 14:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- (See my recent comments on yesterday's ANI thread) My recommendation is to gather evidence of them reverting to each other's version (particularly where one turns up in a dispute when the other gets blocked) and go to WP:RFCU. – Steel 14:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree. GiorgioOrsini all of sudden appeared when I wrote to Giovanni Giove that he's been warned for the third time (although, he had been in many other ways warned not to do edit wars, but discuss on talkpages and give arguments... about 70 (yes, seventy) times. See messages and links on the talkpage of Giovanni Giove, , ).
Now, after that, Giorgio Orsini appeared out of nowhere and "pushed" in again Giove's POV versions (I dare to say that, because Giove persistently avoided any discussion, even if he was explicitly being asked to give answers). Maybe for the reason that Giove can avoid the accusation of "breaking the rule of being warned for the 3rd time/and still continuing"?
See this change from 3rd July and even worse one (on 3rd July) with comment, that blatantly ignored the talkpage; 5th July - . He continued to editwar same day with , without giving any argument on the talkpage.
These changes ignored all arguments (the hill of arguments and sources) given on the talkpage. The case is heavier, because the size of the talkpage shows how long this dispute is goin on.
In fact, he played dumb and even dared to object on the warning ("for the third time") told to Giovanni Giove. He said "The 'proof' above is simply a nonsense. The above use of a particular and a generic term does not prove anything. Also, you are obliged to be civil and not to 'support' your text by your anger". Sent on 5th July .
And even more. Same day, 5th July, on the same talkpage, he send an ...inflammatory message, that is in fact his personal point of view... or a personal wish . "former Yugoslavia's republics... must comply to a single linguistic standard i.e. to the same language" (?????????!) "Balkanization of this language..."(??!!!). Same political views as Giove. To deny any possibility of Croatian language mentioned as independent (described in talkpage of Jakov Mikalja article).
Further, he continued to insult with word ("political propaganda in Croatia"), without any argument given for that. ...If opposer doesn't agree with him, than he "throws mud" on the opposer.
Now to other problem. In this message from 3rdJuly to Giovanni Giove, Giorgio Orsini encouraged him to ignore warnings and (continue vandalizing) . To be correct, this is the change where he stated that .
It would be nice to see if we have a sockpuppet case. Is he the same user as Giovanni Giove? Greetings, Kubura 14:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- There's not much more that I can do, other than agree entirely. Requests for checkuser is the place to go. – Steel 14:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Happy Steel's Day!
 |
Steel359 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Love, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
- Wow, congratulations. Qst 16:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Hurray! Happy day, Steel! :D --Iamunknown 18:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- No need to thank me, dear Steel (and I'm so sorry for not making your day earlier! ;) because you've earned it with your hard work, your positive and kind attitude and your friendship. I hope you had a wonderful, beautiful day, friend! :) Love, Phaedriel - 22:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Hurray! Happy day, Steel! :D --Iamunknown 18:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Nancy Cartwright
I know that you unprotected the article per request but the vandalism to this article continues and I am requesting that it be protected again, the problem looks like it will just continue unless the IP adresses are blocked from editing. Here are some of the vandal edits since you unprotected the article,diff diff 2diff 3diff 4, Thanks --Joebengo 15:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well, in the last seven days it's been vandalised twice. I've just blocked an IP for two weeks if that helps (the one that hit the page on the 4th after being blocked on the 28th. – Steel 20:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Why have you blocked me?
1) Why have you blocked me? I have not broken the 3RR on Mako Marulic/Marco Marulo article. I've done some edits, and they were referencied (for wikilinks, sources or self evidence). For two time user:Zmaj reverted them.
Then I did some further edits (still referencied), this time User:No.13 did 2 rv, giving no reason (just accusing me of 'vandalism'). I did other 2 rvv to defend a NEW version of the article, so I havent broke the rule (as far I can know). All my edits are referencied, and I am open to discussion. What should I do? I'm alone against several Crotian user that don't like what I write. They conducts edit wars against me, and I am alone here...
2) User n°13 break the rule for sure, starting from here. He should be blocked (law is the same for everybody).
3) Why a so long block? accutaly I break the rule for one time only. THe second and the third time, admins themself recognized the error.
Tx for your attention. best regards--Giovanni Giove 20:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Your block was for a clear 3RR violation: . Each reverted the preceeding edit, it doesn't have to be the same text reverted three times. No.13 does appear to have broken the 3RR too; I hadn't noticed that. Regardless, that was three days ago and no block for that now would be justified. If you feel people are ganging up on you, try finding an impartial mediator at WP:MEDCOM or WP:MEDCAB to help resolve the dispute. You'd been blocked three times previously; none of which were overturned. Without checking myself, I'm going to assume that they were valid, since 3RR blocks are usually swiftly overturned if it turns out there was in fact no violation. – Steel 20:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- I forgot: even Zmaj broke the rule, just have a look. I have restored my version, and I am ready to discuss it. On my talk page you can read that admins recognized their errors about the 3RR. See and . Best regards.--Giovanni Giove 20:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Zmaj reverted three times. As for your previous blocks, you appear to be right. – Steel 20:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- I forgot: even Zmaj broke the rule, just have a look. I have restored my version, and I am ready to discuss it. On my talk page you can read that admins recognized their errors about the 3RR. See and . Best regards.--Giovanni Giove 20:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)