User talk:Iaaasi
"Life is really simple, but we insist on making it complicated." - Confucius
| |||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Notification[edit]You are considered to be banned from wikipedia on ANI, following your years of extreme abuse and harassment of others as well as hate mongering. Hobartimus (talk) 14:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Preliminary answer to ANI report[edit]I would not like to make many comments in the first place, at least until being explicitly asked by the admins to bring clarifications. It seems this report is a new stage in the never ending attempt of the users Hobartimus and Nmate to re-block me. As my unblocking admin (Ronhjones) put it, "any activity pre 20:38, 8 December 2010 is now irrelevant". Since that date I've tried to completely respect wiki policies, and the only deviation was when I violated 3RR as a result of misinterpreting #3RR exemptions (all is explained in the unblock requests on my talk page) (Iaaasi (talk) 19:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC))
Drafts[edit]
Hobartimus[edit]Thank you for the advice. The basis for the "conflict" with user Hobartimus is pretty straightforward: his constant refusal to accept anything besides his POV, coupled with sleazy attempts to discredit me while imposing his versions. For example, at Eastern Hungarian Kingdom he relied on his own authority to remove a label which only administrators are entitled to remove. His argument is that, despite the previous deletion, he argued that the previously deleted article criterion "obviously does not apply" (euphemism for "fuck off, I`ll show you how what I can do...") 79.112.15.221 (talk) 11:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Protection?[edit]
Page move[edit]{{help me}} I've opened on 3 February 2011 (46 days ago) a RFM discussion. There was no consensus and it was relisted. I wanna close that one (because I realized that the proposed title was wrong, I don't agree with the initial proposal now) and make a new move proposal (to correct title). How can I do that? I got no answer here (Iaaasi (talk) 10:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC))
After that, you'll be able to start the new proposal. Chzz ► 12:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC) ANI thread[edit]A user has raised an AN/I thread concerning you at WP:ANI#Suspicions of blocking a user based on unfounded allegations and, I see did not notify you, so I am doing so. JohnCD (talk) 18:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
hi...[edit]Hi laaasi, Article: Székely zászló (it means szekely flag) http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sz%C3%A9kely_z%C3%A1szl%C3%B3 it is the first paragraph: The 16th század végéről fennmaradt zászlók és egyenruhák tanúsága szerint, a székelység által használt az arany-égszinkék-ezüst, valamint a vörös és fekete a kimondottan székely szimbólumszínek. There are two reliable sources that shows that information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dontbesogullible (talk • contribs) 18:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC) hi[edit]Hi, I don't know, I just copied from hungarian article and translated it into english and pasted that info into english article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dontbesogullible (talk • contribs) 22:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC) John Hunyadi[edit]Hi I do not know why you have left this sentence in such a bad state, you really cannot assume that anyone else will know what half of this means (as well as not following normal wikifying procedures)
You need to clarify what a kneze is - ennobled knezes ("what it is"). To be honest the sentence which includes "was probably called" is also a little suspect, it sounds like OR and you need to reword it :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 10:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Arbitration enforcement restriction: Eastern Europe[edit]In view of your previous WP:DIGWUREN warning ([10]) and the recent AN3 report, I am imposing the following restriction to take effect in the unlikely event that the block imposed below is ever lifted: In application and enforcement of WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions, You are indefinitely prohibited from making more than one revert per month per page, if the page or the action being reverted are related to Eastern Europe. A "revert" is any action that undoes the action of another editor, in whole or in part, as explained at WP:EW. Sandstein 15:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC) Indefinitely re-blocked[edit] {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Sandstein 15:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)See the related AN3 report. Considering that you have been previously blocked indefinitely for similar disruption and were only unblocked upon the condition of good behavior ([11]), I am reimposing the indefinite block as a normal administrator action (that is, not acting in enforcement of an arbitration decision). Sandstein 15:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)  Iaaasi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I really thought that the respective edit can be considered vandalism, please assume good faith. I've opened this thread on WP:ECCN and made a RFC on the article talk page, I think that is a proof that I seek dispute resolution. As it can be seen: the third party confirmed my assertions. Moreover, one of my edit war opponnents was warned for vandalism by an admin: "one more vandalism edit will result in your being blocked from editing." The only disruption I have done in this period was edit warring. As it can be seen, I've always tried to settle conflicts by addressing to reliable sources noticeboard or asking for 3O. I think that this restriction "Iaaasi is indefinitely prohibited from making more than one revert per month per page, if the page or the action being reverted are related to Eastern Europe." would be enough to prevent further edit wars of this type. Please unblock me under this restriction and if I continue to create problems impose a harsher sanction.
Decline reason: Last time you were blocked you were warned by myself and two other admins that continued edit warring was unacceptable: [12], [13] [14]. Despite this, you've continued to edit war since the block expired, including under a false claim that the material in question was vandalism and hence OK to remove. Your assertion that you didn't mean to edit war and won't do it again lacks any credibility given your record. Nick-D (talk) 03:18, 26 March 2011 (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. I'll leave it up to the reviewing admin to decide whether they want to give you (yet) another chance based on this statement. They might also want to ask the admin who imposed the original indefinite block. In my experience, editors with a similar record are not often a net asset to Wikipedia, so you may want to link to some substantial improvements (new articles or substantial expansions, not minor changes) that you made since your last indefinite block. Sandstein 18:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Iaaasi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: "your assertion that you didn't mean to edit war and won't do it again lacks any credibility given your record." - I did not deny that I was edit warring or tried to exonerate myself, I just explained the motivation behind the reverts. I understand your circumspection, but I think 1RR restriction / article / month proposed above is reasonable. This sanction could be eventually accompanied by a WP:IBAN in my relation with my recent edit war opponents. If I am such a dangerous user to the project, I will break it very soon and re-blocked. If the answer is still NO, can you please tell me the next steps? When can the ban be lifted? What can I do to fasten the process? Decline reason: The edit warring is very clear and the history is damning. Mistaking it for vandalism at this point in the game, when you're hardly new to Wikipedia, is really not an explanation that helps your case. As for where to go from here, given that this is your second indef block, you may be pretty limited on options; it's probably going to be hard to convince the community to give you another chance. You always have the option of appealing to the arbitration committee. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:53, 26 March 2011 (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.
John Hunyadi[edit]Indeed it seems a case of undue weight, but I'm not sure how to help. It seems you already found a lot of sources and you discussed some of them on the talk page. But also please note the difference between Hungarian/Romanian and of Romanian origin. I'm sure most sources agree on him being of Romanian origin, I'm not so sure if they all agree of him being a Romanian. Daizus (talk) 19:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Iaaasi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I have one last proposal, I hope at least this one can be accepted:
Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia; they are not intended as a punishment. I think this list of measures would prevent damage, because the contacts with Hungarian users I had conflicts in the past would be avoided. Decline reason: You're right: blocks are designed to prevent damage. You engaged in massively damaging behaviour, and were blocked. You were unblocked with the understanding that the damage would stop - it quickly returned and escalated, so you were blocked again. Your track record proves that you cannot work in conjunction with those that you disagree with, so the clear proof is available that this type of combative editing will recur. I would highly suggest WP:OFFER at this point, or if you disagree, any further unblock requests must be made to WP:ARBCOM. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:24, 27 March 2011 (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. Iaaasi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: New proposal:
Decline reason: This is not unblock-roulette; you can't just keep making proposals, hoping some admin sees one he likes. The previous decline noted that you need to follow the instructions at WP:OFFER, and I'm going to repeat that advice. Note also that a lot of the reluctance to unblock you has to do with the previous time you were unblocked - we expected that the disruption would stop, and it did not. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:11, 28 March 2011 (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.
Iaaasi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: New proposal: •topic ban Europe •1RR restriction / article / century •WP:IBAN with users I had conflicts with Decline reason: This is exactly the same as the previous declined request. If you continue to waste administrators' time in this way, you will be blocked from editting this page as well. — Tivedshambo (t/c) 14:10, 29 March 2011 (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.
Talk access removed[edit]I take note of User:Iaaasi's statement about removal of his talk page access. Though his words might be ironic, I do agree that there has been sufficient discussion. He has a long record of inappropriate behavior and he was very recently using socks (per Jpgordon's statement). I think Iaaasi's next step if he wants further unblock review would be to write to arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. If any other admin wants to re-enable Iaaasi's talk page access I won't object. EdJohnston (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Iaaasi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: May I be unblocked please? I've uploaded 7 pictures and I'd like to insert them into articles. There is 1 week since my block. If you really consider that I am so dangerous, you can impose me some editing restrictions Decline reason: You are now banned from editing Wikipedia by the community, see the corresponding AN thread. Sandstein 06:24, 2 April 2011 (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.
Iaaasi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: This is not an unblock request. I just want to get an answer at this: I am currently site banned and I'd like to propose the conversion of the site ban into topic ban Hungary-related articles + interaction ban + 1RR restriction. Can I make this request now? And, if not, how much time has to pass? I've uploaded ~10 images to Commons and I'd like to insert them into articles. Decline reason: Please do not use this tempalte again simply to get attention. I would strongly advise waiting six months and then having someone start a community discussion on your ban for you. Kuru (talk) 13:08, 4 April 2011 (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. Iaaasi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I'd like to propose the conversion of my site ban into: topic ban Hungary - related articles (as it can be seen, this is the area where I had disputes) 1RR restriction / article / month WP:IBAN with users I had conflicts with I've uploaded ~10 images to Commons and I'd like to insert them into articles. I'd like also to make good contributions in any area that I would be restricted to Decline reason: Repeating the request less than a month after you have been told '6 months' is not indicative that you are taking what we are telling you to heart. Talkpage access revoked, please address any further appeals to the Arbcom as advised above. Syrthiss (talk) 11:18, 27 April 2011 (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. E-mail access removed[edit]I have re-set the block to remove e-mail access as the user has been soliciting by e-mail to try to get people to edit Wikipedia on his behalf. Editors, if Iaaasi already has your e-mail address, please play it smart and do nothing that he asks. Thanks. --Diannaa (Talk) 13:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Sockpuppetry case[edit]
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iaaasi for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. User:Hurricanefan25/sig/Thanksgiving 19:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC) Sockpuppetry case[edit]
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iaaasi for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Calabe1992 21:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC) So I did it.....[edit]Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. [17] -- CoolKoon (talk) 22:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC) Just matter-of-factly....[edit]Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- CoolKoon (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC) The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)[edit]Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.  In this issue:
--The Olive Branch 19:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC) Correction needed at Matthias Corvinus article[edit]@User:Borsoka I've noticed that you focus these days on the improving of Matthias Corvinus, and I'd like to point out to you a typo mistake: In the section Matthias_Corvinus#Wars_against_the_Ottoman_Empire it should be "new military banats, Jajce and Srebrenik" instead of "new military banats, Jajce and Srebernik". I would have made the correction myself, but User:DeltaQuad, the defender of law and justice here on en.wp, applied the rules in an exemplary manner and blocked my infamous sock accounts User:Avpop and User:Ytmt1. Moreover, the also blocked my ip range in order to protect wikipedia of the massive destructions commited by myself to wiki artocles via these two accounts. Thanks in advance. Iaaasi (talk) 13:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If you have already appealed to the Unblock Ticket Request System and been declined you may appeal to the Arbitration Committee's Ban Appeals Subcommittee. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice. Proxying edits while banned is not allowed as you have been told before by emailing other editors. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 16:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC) Speedy deletion nomination of User talk:Iaaasi/t[edit] A tag has been placed on User talk:Iaaasi/t requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Legacypac (talk) 01:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC) Talk page access granted[edit]Following a request in the #wikipedia-en-unblock IRC channel I have re-established talk page access, with the understanding that any use of the talk page beyond contesting the ban will lead to access again being revoked. Huon (talk) 23:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC) Unban request[edit]Iaaasi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I am banned from English Wikipedia and I am asking for the permission to return into the community after being away for a long time. I understand my mistakes that led to sanctions and I am fully confident that now I would be able to avoid such problems. I am ready to discuss here about the conditions of my unban, about the further steps that I need to follow. (Request updated on 30 dec. 2017) Hello. I am currently banned from English Wikipedia and I am asking for the permission to return into the community after being away for a long time. I understand my errors that led to sanctions and I am fully confident that now I would be able to avoid such problems. I was site banned in 2011 after committing successive violations of the 3RR rule. However these wrongdoings did not represent a wilful defiance of the 3RR rule, but were the result of misinterpretations of the policy. Now I am more mature and less impulsive, so I would be able to be more rational during tense situations. I am aware that dispute resolution processes can be slow sometimes, but I am confident that I will be able to be more patient and refrain from edit warring. I will try to impose my opinion on the talk page and gain consensus there, not matter how long it will take, and I will have the strength to accept an unfavorable decision. I realize that edit warring is not acceptable in any circumstances. I've learned many things from being blocked/banned. I've become conscious of the fact that it is much simpler and convenient to wait several days for a content dispute to be settled than to edit war, get blocked, and than wait several months/years to get unblocked. It is true that I created some sock-puppet account after my ban, but I think that the harm inflicted to the project while evading my block was reduced. I did many constructive edits in this period of "illegality" and I also initiated new articles like Lia Olguța Vasilescu or Antonio Alexe. Now I accumulated some time (~1 year) since giving up using sock-puppet accounts. I hope that now I fulfill the conditions for being accepted back into the en.wp community. There would be a zero moment, a possibility to start everything over again, and I am sure that I will not repeat the mistakes of the past Decline reason: Unban request has been declined here after community discussion. Alex Shih (talk) 12:46, 31 December 2017 (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.
@Davey2010, @Kudpung "I oppose unban because you had nearly 140 socks" - if I were an admin, I would never make use of this approach, because it is an indirect encouragement for the banned user to continue using sock accounts (it determines me to ask myself: "I am damned for eternity. Why would I stop using sock accounts, when they aren't going to ever unban me anyway?"). Iaaasi (talk) 11:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Talk page access restored (July 2018)[edit]Per discussion on IRC, I have re-enabled your talk page access for the purpose of appealing your ban. An administrator will copy your appeal to WP:AN. You must not use this talk page access for any other reason. Any uninvolved administrator may revoke your talk page access without needing to consult me first - TNT 💖 13:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 Iaaasi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) UTRS appeal #23766 was submitted on Jan 14, 2019 11:21:54. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 11:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC) Iaaasi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) UTRS appeal #23877 was submitted on Feb 01, 2019 21:52:29. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 21:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC) Iaaasi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) UTRS appeal #23888 was submitted on Feb 04, 2019 09:45:06. This review is now closed.
|
Talk page access restored (Feb 2019)
[edit]Hello, Iaaasi, per your request to UTRS, I have restored your talk page access. You may find the instructions at WP:GAB useful. When you are ready to make the appeal, you may place the template under this message. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- TonyBallioni Thanks for restoring my talk page access. Iaaasi (talk) 08:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Iaaasi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I've always liked reading stuff on wikipedia. In 2009, when I clicked the "edit" button for the first time, I did not expect to be an active user for so long afterwards. I thought that I will simply fix a couple of biased paragraphs that I had found and then I would switch back to the read-only mode. However things got complicated. I was drawn into content disputes which soon distorted into personal disputes. When I considered myself mistreated by other editors, i lost my temper and I went crazy. Blocks, followed by ban represented a natural consequence.
After being banned, I could't endure seeing sock-puppets of one my former "opponent" editing undisturbed and I created tons of accounts myself just to report those socks. I grossly offended administrators who did not understand my point of view.
I am happy to say that I am completely healed of wiki-obsession. I don't even care that User:Stubes99 's sock account Dwirm is live and kicking. Now I don't see any benefits in being a regular contributor. It may be fun for me to write articles, but only as a paid job.
I think I deserve this unban. Restoring my editing rights would balance my wiki karma. It would close the circle, and let me wholly pass peacefully from the wiki dimension into the real world Iaaasi (talk) 16:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Unblock requests containing personal attacks are not considered. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 18:56, 6 February 2019 (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.
Jpgordon The "personal attack" is, of course, the reference to Stubes99's extra-obvious sock-puppet, that was also identified by KIENGIR... OK, I am out of here. I should not have requested a formal unban before announcing my official retirement from editing Wikipedia. Iaaasi (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Your e-mail regarding SPI
[edit]Hi,
Your concern should be transparent, as far as I know you have a talk page access so you may present your evidence here and ping DeltaQuad (anyway I would ask her regarding this, since she is an expert in this topic), she can decide if you have enough evidence and conduct an action in case.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC))
- Response to your second e-mail: Well, I did not know that you talk page access was revoked again, but are you sure, since you were able also to announce you retirement (the last edits here were made by you). Anyway, I think you should not worry, DeltaQuad and others are regurarly making checks and sooner or later surely they will have a result.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC))
UTRS admins
[edit]I declined the most recent UTRS appeal, but just to note, there has been recent socking from Iaaasi, despite the claims in UTRS. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Iaasi is activated his vandalism in these articles
[edit]Banned user:Iaaasi is active and vandalise these article and write his fantasy numbers in Hungarian–Romanian War , Aster Revolution and Béla Linder articles. He invented fictive fantasy numbers, removed the original old referenced numbers in the mentioned articles. Please restore the old original referenced version of the articles what Iassi vandalised.
Cealicuca is a possible meat puppet, or at least he sometimes serving the vandalism of Iaaasi
[edit]user:Iaaasi often use meatpuppets of his compatriots, who are informed via e-mail.
Banned user:Iaaasi is active and vandalise these articles and write his fantasy numbers in Hungarian–Romanian War , Aster Revolution and Béla Linder articles. Iaaasi invented fictive fantasy numbers, removed the original old referenced numbers in the mentioned articles.
user:Cealicuca made a direct false statement in the edit comment of the article of Hungarian-Romanian war, where he stated that you "restored" User:Norden1990's edit. Here is the link of Norden's last edit from 14:19, 10 April 2021 , which is vastly different from Cealicuca's version.
https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Hungarian%E2%80%93Romanian_War&oldid=1017049395
In the reality, Cealicuca carefully preserved the new fictive fantasy numbers of Iaaasi's edits, which contradict the old cited references of the article.
Both academic historians ( Ingnác Romsics and Martin Kitchen wrote that Hungary had over 1,2 Million soldiers before the self-disarmament order of Béla Linder.
Direct URL for Kitchener's book: https://books.google.com/books?id=36WsAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA190&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
--Restore the referenced old version with original numbers (talk) 13:17, 17 August 2021 (UTC)