Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Taalo (talk | contribs) at 00:04, 2 October 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This user page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you might try contacting the user in question or seeking broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/OpenNote is deprecated. Please see User:MediationBot/Opened message instead.

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

Request reason:

My account was blocked indefinitely, because allegedly sockpuppet of another account, blocked indefinitely because I said I wanted to close it! How could I exit from this madness?

Decline reason:

Something of a misrepresentation, your other account was blocked for 24 hours, you then continued using this account to evade that block. I suggest you email the blocking admin and tell them which account (if any) you wish to continue using and agree not to evade any future blocks using sockpuppets

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.

Furthermore, I would like to know the procedure to follow when you think an Admin abused its powers.--Panarjedde 11:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

See dispute resolution --pgk 11:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand, it is not a dispute on WP content, but on an Admin/User behaviour. Furthermore, If I am blocked indefintely, how can I do anything else than writing on this talk page?--Panarjedde 12:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

As the tag says do not replace with another unblock request. Dispute resolution if you had bothered to read it covers all manner of dispute not just content. Also regarding your current status as I said in the unblock review which you removed (I've restored again), email the blocking admin with details of the account you wish to use and agree not to use sockpuppets to evade blocks in the future. --pgk 16:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

My blocker said he already had the last word on my case "last comment about Panairjdde".--Panarjedde 16:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, how can I edit dispute resolution or any other page there referred, if I am blocked? Maybe you are referring to something else.--Panarjedde 16:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, your motivation for unblocking denial is not correct, there is no "other account", since I closed the "other" so I only have this one, which is undefinitely blocked and nobody told me if/when it will be unblocked. Note that also the "other" account is blocked indefinitely.--Panarjedde 16:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Not at all the block log shows you were blocked for 24 hours on the other account, at which point you started using this one, that is simple block evasion, blocks are against the person not the specific account. As for "closing" the other account, there is no such thing as "closing" an account, merely that you claim to no longer intend to use it, which if it comes after it has been blocked for some reason will of course seem rather convenient. The block log for that account says "he says he has closed this account; may be unblocked by another Admin if he promises to behave & stop using sockpuppets". I don't mean any other page, again I suggest you read the options such as emailing the mailing list, last time I checked using email didn't require editing of any pages on wikipedia. --pgk 17:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

From the block log "# 19:20, 14 July 2006 Llywrch (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Panairjdde (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (despite being warned about disruptive activites, editor continued disrutpive behavior)", usage of this account started 3 hours later. --pgk 17:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Q1: how do you call when you change the password of an account to a "random" one?

Q2: " with an expiry time of indefinite (he says he has closed this account; may be unblocked by another Admin if he promises to behave & stop using sockpuppets)" how can I exit from this, if my account (Panarjedde) is blocked indefinitely and an "admin" expects me to use an account that is closed (Panairjdde)? Isn't this a provoation to actually use sockpuppets?--Panarjedde 17:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Which part of "Blocked editor: your unblock request continues to be visible. Do not replace this message with another unblock request" are you having difficulty understanding, stop readding the unblock template. --pgk 22:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I did not "replace this message with another unblock request". I just had another motivationm for unblock request. The problem is that once it gets in the reviewed category, unblock requests might be visible, but nobody answer them.

As I said, I was blocked for this allegedly "disruptive" edit. My "blocker" doesn't want to comment on it. Is it possible that someone reviews it?--Panarjedde 22:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Either way it is abusing the unblock notice. how do you know that no other admin is looking and simply just not agreeing with the block? --pgk 07:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Rome

Sorry. It seems I pushed the wrong link, have currently problem with mouse. Bye. --Attilios 21:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Removal of content from Sheffield Wednesday F.C.

Please refrain from removing content from Misplaced Pages, as you did to Sheffield Wednesday F.C.. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 21:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Eras

See Common Era for reasons why I use CE instead of AD. I think we should start to think that this is an international encyclopedia, and Jew or Islamic readers could prefer to read dates without everytime remember them Christ's name. So my changes are simply a way to make Misplaced Pages more broadly acceptable. Let me know and good work!--Attilios 21:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I read the past discussions. I submit to popular will. Anyway, as long as my edits are consistent in BCE notation, and since it is clearly stated that BOTH forms are acceptable, I don't see any reason why I should revert my edits. Bye! --Attilios 21:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I think "seriously against WP rules" is quite exagerrated. I repeat that it is clearly stated that both forms are acceptable, so yours is only a matter of procedure, to which I submit, not of substance. I think, to avoid confusion, that some Jimbo should jump out and plainly state which form to use, wiping out ambiguity (something like happened for decimals in 1,000 instead than 1.000 forms). Ciao and good work!--Attilios 21:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're again wrong. I never warred, I seem. I simply restored back the BCE form when adding some other info in Rome article, as I had read that both form were acceptable (and still didn't know about the popular agreement). Frankly your hints about me warring or having "bad faith" are beginning to annoy me. Bye. --Attilios 21:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I read hastily the discussion 'cause it seemed meaningless just from its beginning. Menaces of suspension like that in the last lines, coming from a committee of only six users are frankly exagerrated. This is my opinion. I repeatedly pointed out that anyway I will accept the majority (?) will, so please let me stay. I think we Wikipedians should devote our time to more factive jobs than these silly disputes about nothing. Good work!! --Attilios 21:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Stalking

If you continue this way, I will notify to some administrator you're harassing me. Did you put my contrib page in your watchlist? --Attilios 08:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Dont' know what you mean with "Can you really watch a contribution page". Anyway, are you really wasting your time to revert my edits to ALL my history articles? And, what does mean "reverting to original format"? I wrote a ton of them, so don't remember exactly, but many history section were written from scratch by me, probably using the BCE convention from the very beginning... As for Severus, I need some time before upgrading it by myself. Check it this late afternoon (anyway, your spurring is welcome. I sometimes tend to be lazy!) Anyway on good terms, Attilios 11:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Trentino-Alto Adige/Sudtirol

I would really like to understand how users, particularly Gryffindor, have been allowed to do this highly political movement of changing everything to South Tyrol and/or German names. The -region- is Trentino-Alto Adige/Sudtirol. The -provinces- are Province of Trento (TN) and Province of Bolzano-Bozen (BZ). The towns are Trento, Bolzano-Bozen, Brennero-Brenner, Merano-Meran, etc. Taalo 00:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)