User talk:Elampon
You have violated the three-revert rule. Any administrator may now choose to block your account. In the future, please make an effort to discuss your changes further, instead of edit warring. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
In a 2007 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user editing Balkans-related articles in a disruptive way. If you engage in further inappropriate behaviour in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Last warning: Get off my talkpage. When people tell you to keep out, keep out. Edit warring in itself is bad enough; edit warring on other people's talkpages is not tolerated at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Deletions
[edit]Blocked
[edit]100 hours for your disruptive edits. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 17:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
For what disrputive edits?--Elampon (talk) 17:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Why dont take a lok at the link above, and tell me who is disruptive?--Elampon (talk) 17:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
When someone deletes something you wrote on their user talk page re-adding it multiple times is clearly disruptive. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Clearly disruptive is me defending myself and content, when I have linked the ISO-standards website, and when the description of the particular language as reported by ISO-standards website is being denied, in favor of original research?
The admin in question is deleting material referenced from the ISO-standards website and replacing them with original research of his own, while at the same time insulting me, deleting my responses and trying his best to get me blocked. --Elampon (talk) Take a look at the History of his page for Christ's sake.[1]17:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
But when he deleted your response you should not repost it. We are quite strict on that kind of thing. You were spoiling for a fight. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
What are you talking about, dear Theresa?, first of all the response was not directed at him, but was directed at user Islander. Secondly the response, is in regards to the content of my edits and constitutes solid proof, that my edits are needed, since they represent the consensus of the authority of the ISO-Standards, in contradiction to FPas original research. You see I have quoted the ISO-Standards website, and replaced the original research of administrator in question, and ever since then, he has been insulting me, trying to get me banned, and deleting my cited and referenced material. This is not fair at all. And I will drag this as far as possible. It appears that this is a party of wiki friends/administrators that have ganged up to delete material that come from the ISO-standards website, and block the user, who brings them over. --Elampon (talk) 17:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
If you wanted to talk to islander you should have taken it to his talk page. You cannot repeat post to FPaS's talk page despite being told not to by him. It's harassment and is dealt with by blocking. Note that I am not his friend, and have no opinion about the article itself, only on your behavior at his talk page. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Theresa, my response is linked to the article in question, and contains the link to the ISO standards website, which is so terrifying for your friend. For obvious reasons. When your friend takes a breath and realize what he has been doing since yesterday, and perhaps apologize, i will consider, not to take this further, in the Arbitration Commitee.--Elampon (talk) 18:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Sigh! Honestly he's not my friend. By all means take this to the AC when you come back though. I don't understand what you mean by your response being linked to the article though. You repeatedly revert warred on his user talk page despite him making it quite clear that he did not want you to. Doing this is seen as aggressive. Use this time as a learning experience for what is and is not acceptable behavior. I am actually trying to help you here. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Granted, i understand, what you are saying regarding his talk page, what I mean is that my response on his talk page concludes our discussion in his talk page, and ought to be there, but also verifies beyond any doubt the respective edit of mine on the wiki article of the Ancient Macedonian Language. I am only new here, and do not know exactly where and how to appeal, but i will work my way around, and certainly take this as far as possible.--Elampon (talk) 18:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- The first step would be what is called a request for comment page where are large number of the community are invited to take a look and offer an opinion. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, thank you. --Elampon (talk) 18:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Unblock
[edit]
Elampon (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was asked by the user Insider in the User page of Future Perfect at Sunrise to provide sources confirming my thesis, when i did so, by providing a link to the ISO-standards website, my response kept on getting deleted, and i kept on adding it, which resulted to my block. You can see the History page of said user:[2]. It is quite clear, that my text is in response to the Insider's question, and the user who deleted them, was not the Insider, but the Future Perfect at Sunrise. Clearly, he was disrupting our discussion, by deleting my legitimate reply, and i feel i have every right to reply to questions posed. Kind regards --Elampon (talk) 13:51, 21 April 2008
(UTC)
Decline reason:
None of that is a reason to unblock you. You were edit warring on another user's talk page. That you felt like continuing to argue there is not an excuse -- in fact, it is exactly what the problem was. You know where Islander's talk page is, if you want to respond to him, that is an appropriate place to post your message (let alone, of course, the talk page of the article). I was willing to assume good faith to an extent but after you were overtly and specifically warned and you continued to argue and restored your removed comments, it becomes absolutely clear that this was disruptive. Edit warring on other peoples' talk pages is not tolerated, period. Mangojuicetalk 15:36, 21 April 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.
But mate, if i do not reply back, then it is infered that i agree, with what is written by the previous user, and i was asked to provide sources, i did not provide them without reason. I replied back to the question posed to me by a third party. --Elampon (talk) 16:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- I recognize that, which is why I would not have supported this block if you were blocked simply for writing a response. Edit warring on FPoS's talk page is not acceptable; if you felt the need to respond to Islander, User talk:Islander is available. Users have an interest in keeping bickering they aren't interested in away from their own talk pages; if someone reverts you on their own talk page, find another way to express yourself. Mangojuicetalk 16:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I was simply writing a response, and that is evidently clear, the question posed was located in that user page and hence the response oughts to be located together with the question posed. The User that deleted the response, participated in the discussion, and argued that the link i brought forward( from the Linguist List) is not the internationally accepted view, but just an opinion, the response he deleted, proves beyond any doubt the opposite, for it proves that the ISO-Standards(who bapitezed the respective lanmguage in International terms), are in accordance with the description in the link provided. The deleted response is both a direct response to a question posed by a third-party, but also an direct response to a former allegation of the user, who deleted it, so that he defends his unfounded allegation. --Elampon (talk) 17:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- You are not getting it. You cannot edit war on someone's user talk page no matter how much you feel you are in the right! Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
It appears that you are not getting it, or you are not inclined to get it, i was responding. My "edit-war" was in regards to a response. That is evidently clear.--Elampon (talk) 12:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, and you can't do that, No edit warring on someones talk page for any reason. For any reason. If FPaS deleted your response that is a clear message that a) he read it and b) He doesn't want to talk to you anymore. You had other options you chose instead to edit war on his talk page.Theresa Knott | The otter sank 05:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- To be fair, a 100 hour block was probably excessive, though I see it has expired now. Carcharoth (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. Re Ancient Macedonian language, ask for the help of a neutral admin. User:Future Perfect at Sunrise seems biased and he's obviously hostile. Don't know what issues he has but he surely has some (check this one: Now get off this page). Regards. ktr (talk) 17:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Note
[edit]Per WP:ARBMAC you are banned from Ancient Macedonian language and all closely related articles for six months, due to your recent disruptive editing. Your position is not supportable and your POV-warring is not acceptable. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I have supported my position both in the talk-page of the article and in the talk page of the user Future Perfect at Sunrise. Does any of you has any arguments whatsoever or is this simply ganging up? --Elampon (talk) 18:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
In addition this WP:ARBMAC clearly states the following:
1) Any uninvolved administrator may, on their own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if that editor fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, the expected standards of behavior, or the normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; restrictions on reverts; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision. Passed 6-0 at 02:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC).
Where exactly is the warning given to me?
And what exactly is my disruptive editing and POV pushing?
Can anyone of you point it out?--Elampon (talk) 18:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
If you read that, you might want to have a look here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Future Perfect at Sunrise. ktr (talk) 21:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)