|
User talk:HeritoctavusMarch 2014
Hello, Kirin13 and C.Fred I'm not sure you are somewhat related or not. Anyway, there is a good news. I'm unblocked and I'll be back on the 'rink'. But, there is also a bad news. I ... AM ... BACK !!!
 Your recent editing history at Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. —C.Fred (talk) 20:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC) Please stop reverting my edits on Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles and Figure skating at the 2010 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles. I have clearly stated why I've made these edits. You've been reverting without making comment and ignoring my attempts at discussing the issues. Kirin13 (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. —C.Fred (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC) Complaint on DefamationHey C.Fred, What the hell is 137.122.64.58 ? Why did you send an email about 137.122.64.58 to me? Who and what are you and what is the reason to send an email like this to my email account, out of the blue, on this peaceful weekend? I'm aware that I've been blocked since yesterday. Are you saying that somebody from that IP breached my account and did something? I have some followers and friends who know what I'm doing with the concurrent issues. But, if you are an wikipedia employee, DO NOT THREATEN everybody who has similar opinions, this way. [ This is defamation. I want your apology for this threat. ] Remove citation on me [heritoctavus] from that page, immediately I'll be back when the block is elapsed. While I'm at it you keep blocking somebody from 137.122.64.58 who's breaching my account; enforce them to login; that's your job — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heritoctavus (talk • contribs) 16:48, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Hey C.Fred,
SEE BELOW, C.Fred May God save hopelessHi, C.Fred, Why are you so obsessed with "the similarity" that does not exist to spend your time writing an email to me on this tranquil weekend all of a sudden ? You don't enjoy your holiday? .... LOL( laughing out loud .... ) If you just say sorry, then it can be just over. simple.... If you want to prove "the similarity", just do it like - WHICH SENTENCE written by 137.122.64.58 is the same as what I had previously written. Then, I will sue that person for plagiarism. .... LOLOM ( laughing out loud ....once more .... ) Come on... be neutral. Do not insist on your subjectivity. It seems like that "the SIMILARITY" exists only in the imagination inside your brain. Just go outside and meet people and talk and enjoy. I sincerely, honestly hope that you live in a big city where, for example, for example only, there is a psychiatrist. ...I clearly said "for example"... (..LS...) Why are you so fearful of seeing the truth ? Well, you remind me of Kirin13 in that respect, while I strongly want to believe that you are not any related to that person. Edits on 2014 Ladies' singles pageRelated to your edits on Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles. The reason I undid them is: 1) For article continuity, you need to retain the information in the "Official responses" even if something is listed on top. 2) There is no citation for KOC actually having filed the complaint. Both ref listed only say that KOC intends to file. Thus, there is no indication that IOC has received any complaint. 3) Top of article is summary. The summary already says KOC intends to file a complaint. If readers want to know more than, they know to jump to that section using the table of contents or just scrolling down. There is no need to tell users to go to section 4. Before undoing my edit, please discuss here. Thanks, Kirin13 (talk) 05:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC) Please stop your disruptive editing on Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles. Please see above comment for reasons your edit was reverted. Kirin13 (talk) 06:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC) 2010 Figure Skating articlePlease stop your disruptive editing on Figure skating at the 2010 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles. Repeatedly making the same edit and refusing to engage in discussion on the talk pages is an example of disruptive editing. Reasons for inclusion of Asada's records is discussed on the talk page. Kirin13 (talk) 06:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC) Hey,Kirin13 I posted my opinion on that talk page. See that and think why you are absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heritoctavus (talk • contribs) 09:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC) Hi Heritoctavus, I have replied. Please continue the discussion on the talk page. And please keep civil. Insulting me doesn't make me think that you are right. Kirin13 (talk) 10:08, 23 March 2014 (UTC) Your recent edits
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 09:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC) A thread has been started at the administrators' noticeboard about your conduct
 {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.  Heritoctavus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: Review this issue with a third person than C.Fred or Basalisk I need to be unblocked for the following reason : 1. I will RETRACT my comments with legal things. I clearly state that I did/do/will not have intention to take any legal action towards C.Fred or Wikipedia.org about this incident. 2. I only mentioned the "possibility" of legal action that anybody can say when they are groundlessly defamed. C.Fred did not give an objective, verifiable, technical evidence that the person 137.122.64.58 is myself. What I wanted was an 'apology' and removal of reference of me in 137.122.64.58. 3. Also note that, in WP:LEGAL page, it states that "....problem such as defamation or copyright infringement is not a threat ..." And I was requesting apology for groundless defamation ( or libel ) to C.Fred, which, in no ways, violated WP:LEGAL. 4. But I will keep making "A report of a problem such as defamation or libel" and request an apology to C.Fred ; this is NOT A LEGAL ACTION NOR A LEGAL THREAT. 5. As I state above, I do not have an intention to take legal action about this incident. To retract my comments that may be wrongfully thought of as "true intention of legal action", I need to be unblocked. Accept reason: I'm unblocking you, on the condition that you do not use legal language such as "libel", "defamation", "suit" etc. etc. You don't need to use that language to discuss improvements. You also do not need to keep haranguing C Fred for an apology. You're not going to get one; he's made it clear he doesn't want you to bother him about it anymore and continuing to argue about it is harassment. If you continue it you will be blocked again. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 19:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
In reponse to this, I will resume the contribution to your business on the condition that you Basilisk and CFred do not start buzzing and haganguing! ever again with some funny things including, but not limited to the wrongful referencing of me in 137.122.64.58, which has been bugging me a LITTLE. I don't want you to bugging me anymore. If you do this, this also constitutes harassment. As you did not provide any evidence, I will remove(if you do not), if possible, any of your knee-slapping act of referencing me in any page. Was fun, though during the last weekend. I think this mischief of yours as part of your entertainment service. I appreciate your business. Thank you, great, have fun with yourselves next time, not with me. (as it will constitute harassment)
Reference Errors on 24 March
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC) CivilityHeritoctavus, I repeat, be civil. Examples of when Heritoctavus made uncivil and false comments to me (Kirin13):
Examples of when Heritoctavus made uncivil comments towards others:
In general, the tone you use whenever you interact with anyone. (Have you gotten along with a single editor here on Wikipedia?) You have been condescending and demanding. You hold the opinion that you are right and everyone else is biased. You accuse others of vandalism when they haven't. You continually refuse to sign your comments properly (using four tildes). You continually don't write edit summaries to your edits. In general, your making it difficult for anyone to work with you. Kirin13 (talk) 07:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC) Basalisk, As per what Kirin13 said above : Kirin13, please read this.
Heritoctavus (talk) 05:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Heritoctavus (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC) Look at this : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Figure_skating_at_the_2014_Winter_Olympics&diff=600557983&oldid=600556909 This is your first comment on "vandalism" when you removed my edit. I did not even know Wikipedia's "vandalism" policy before. From that moment, I started to say "vandalism" when you removed my edit without any reasoning in talk page. You wanted the discussion about the ladies event (not this) in talk page (not edit remark), but you did not give any reasoning there. That's why I reverted your removals. What was wrong with my sentence? You said my sentence is absurd, but you think yours is not to me? Separately, go back history, and you see my point was "mentioning ethnicity can be biased or can lead to any type of prejudice, no matter what the original intention is". NO RACIAL COMMENT! I said similar things many times. Isn't there any wikipedia rule about racial comments?
Heritoctavus (talk) 17:02, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Heritoctavus (talk) 03:20, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - - - - -- THIS PAGE IS RESERVED FOR Kirin13 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - - - - -- THIS PAGE IS RESERVED FOR Kirin13 | | | | | | | | | Heritoctavus (talk) 02:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC) You got a point with the example (the first Chinese, the all-Portuguese) These are nationalities. In an encyclopedic manner, nationality is a clear cut. But, the ethnicity is a lot arguable if you think 2/3 of world population is Asian : from Arabians, Indians to Vietnamese and Mongolians. (I hope you don't think Vietnamese and Mongolians are any similar) And even mixture of races. There are too many things to discuss about racial matters. That may lead to an ethnically divisional point of view of the world. That is why I think comment on ethnicity should be avoided, but the nationality. We don't say like all three are ethnically caucasian. Right? Heritoctavus (talk) 17:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC) Your recent editing history at Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. NeilN talk to me 14:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC) Your recent edits
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC) Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 20:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC) Heritoctavus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: OK. Listen. What I wanted to do was to reverting to the original sentences because the consensus was not met. That is why we use talk page, isn't it? I followed the usage of talk page. Second, if my comment on NYT is leading to disruptive editing, I will remove it. Just tell me what another part of my editing constitutes disruptive editing, I will remove it. Decline reason: It appears that at least 3 other editors disagreed with changes you repeatedly made to Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) over the course of a single day. On top of that, we don't call people names or demean them like this. Fundamentally, in order to be unblocked at this point, you must demonstrate not only your knowledge of our policies and guidelines, but an itemized understanding of the ones you've wantonly disregarded in the mere span of a week, how you did so, and how you plan to avoid doing so in the future. --slakr\ talk / 21:33, 26 March 2014 (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.
Heritoctavus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: Hey, Slakr, (or other administrator), The block is no longer necessary because : 1. Two editors disagreed with me. This situation is possible if wikipedia wants to be neutral instead of something decided by voting. So, I used talk page, listed all the issues, and tried to come to an agreement. I always requested objective, verifiable reasons of repetitive removal of my edit. Any rule, law, newspaper or reference etc, instead of his/her/their subjective opinion. In this way, I believe, we can be neutral. And I recovered my edit when it had been removed without this. I am always willing to discuss on a fair ground - objectivity. 2. No violation of WP:NPA. I did not mean to demean them that way as you indicated. In USA, you can even say 'Hey, guy' to a person 20 years older than you, which is totally unimaginable in some other cultures. Even your id is slakr. You don't use it in real life, I hope. This is only possible because we're in the net. And there is a wider choice of expression just like your id. 3. About the block reason this time (disruptive editing), I clearly stated that "I will remove it." in the unblock request. And added "Just tell me what another part of my editing constitutes disruptive editing, I will remove it." Got it? 4. I reject your choice of the word "wantonly", which might be insulting. This word can be used in expressions like "a wanton woman"; a highly improper choice. I do not respond to the sentence that includes this word. Period. Decline reason: If you cannot see how referring to another editor by name as a "busybuddy", or another as "twinkle twinkle little star" (which, by the way, has homophobic connotations and this borders on hate speech) are violations of WP:NPA, then there's really little hope for you even understanding how the rest of your behaviours are inappropriate. Your entire editing history here is 180 degrees contrary to the policies you agreed to; period. DP 09:59, 27 March 2014 (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. Heritoctavus (talk) 06:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Heritoctavus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason:
Decline reason: All I'm seeing in both this unblock appeal and subsequent comments is a determination to argue and and debate about the rules, not follow them. It borders on straight-up trolling, and if it continues I'll be more than happy to take away your talkpage access as well. In order to be unblocked, you need to show, succinctly and coherently, that you understand why you were blocked, that you understand why that behaviour is not tolerated here, and that you will not repeat your actions. Anything beyond that is at best extraneous, at worst a sign that you're here purely to get into fights - and that's precisely the sort of editing we neither want nor need here. Yunshui 雲水 09:50, 31 March 2014 (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. Do you understand how your various edits went against these policies/guidelines? It's not a question of removing past edits. It's a question of changing your behavior. --NeilN talk to me 19:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Heritoctavus (talk) 17:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Heritoctavus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: Why is this account still blocked? I do not understand what you mean by collaboration with editors. What I am supposed to do is to follow Wikipedia's guidelines. I do not need to "collaborate" with any group of editors in writing the contents as long as I follow the rules. What specifically do you want more? CLARIFY, SPECIFY what you want to unblock this account. Decline reason: One of the policies on Wikipedia is WP:Consensus. How can you work to achieve consensus unless you collaborate with other editors? You cannot edit articles in a vacuum; unless you just walk away whenever any edit you make is objected to, you will need to interact with the other editors, discuss the situation, and arrive at a consensus. Your unblock request suggests that you have not demonstrated a willingness or ability to cooperate with other editors. —C.Fred (talk) 23:04, 17 April 2014 (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. |
Portal di Ensiklopedia Dunia
