I am not sure why you are rehashing old, old news on User talk:Man with one red shoe, what your beef is with that editor, or what your issue is with User:Binksternet that you are trying to decide by proxy. What I do now is that your repeated complaining on their talk page constitutes harassment. The editor has repeatedly removed your message, which on a talk page means they have read it and are informed. Repeating the accusation therefore constitutes harassment. If you have a complain about a recent edit they made, you are free to report that at the proper venue--Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. In the meantime, I ask you to not revisit their talk page for the purpose of complaining about a supposed incident in January. Consider this an only and final warning. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I made it quite clear on the noticeboard that there is no apparent retriction as to the age of vandalism. I also made it quite clear that my other two posts were replies to his posts. But of course, you didn't see any of that because you chose to decide your course of action without allowing me any chance whatsoever to comment. Making baseless accusations that I am trying to decide some issue with binksternet by proxy is a remarkably paranoid claim for which you have no grounds whatsoever. I identified some of his other repeated abusive use of obscenities by mentioning the individual who erased them for his benefit because they were erased and are therefore difficult to locate. Claiming that I had "some beef with that editor" also fits into the same category. I warned him because of his abusive use of obscenities which is clearly defined as vandalism on the same page where either you or your pal falsely claimed there was some retriction against warning an editor against vandalism after some specific statute of limitations had elapsed. If you're going to quote rules, try learning them first. I also see that you assumed I was lying about his many other abusive uses of obscenities. (Your comment(or maybe your pal's), that "If that's the only one...") Well, unlike future perfect, who's lies are posted below, I was telling the truth.Ion G Nemes (talk) 15:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since you have continued with the same behaviour and stated explicitly you would continue with the same [1], you have been blocked, initially for a period of 48 hrs. Fut.Perf.☼06:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Falsely claiming that I "have continued with the same behavior", eh? I'd like to know if you always lie that way, or if you just feel like lying on occasion. Oh, I'm sorry, I guess it might just be incompetence and not the willful lying it appears to be. Either way, it isn't true.Ion G Nemes (talk) 15:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Romania
Hi! From your edits, it looks like you might be interested in contributing to WikiProject Romania. It is a project aimed at organizing and improving the quality and accuracy of articles related to Romania. Thanks and best regards!
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Traian Vuia. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. Binksternet (talk) 01:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to offer you some encouragement and advice that you can choose to do with as you wish. You clearly are a passionate editor and wish to contribute the the project but your confrontational style is going to land you in hot water. Some tips that you might consider; if you feel very strongly about a particular topic (e.g that Traian Vuia was a lying scumbag) then it may be best for you not to edit that article. To get your point across in that particular article you have edited against consensus. My point is that you may be too close to the subject to editor neutrally. Sometimes a self-imposed topic ban is the best way to avoid confrontation. Another tip is that any time you feel the need to write in ALL CAPS - you should probably take a break, best wishes Flat Outlet's discuss it01:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, in point of fact I have not edited against consensus. editors falsely claiming a consensus while not discussing the question to form one are not the same thing as a consensus. In addition, a consensus can only of utility if it conforms to guidelines. Changing the page on a whim so it does not match the references to reliable sources posted there is not an act which can be sanctioned by a consensus of editors.I do not feel strongly about the fact that trajan vuia was a lying scumbag. It is however a fact nonetheless. Your assertions about this article make me wonder if you really did read it. If you had you would realize that I was reasonable until Longtone went batshit. But whether you understand the page is of little importance to me. And the rather snide nature of your 'friendly advice' indicates to me that your primary concern is, like Longtone and Binksternet and DonFB, that that article stay the way it is regardless of it's serious flaws. As long as you can just make me go away all the problems will be solved.
Sure is a great way to build an encyclopedia!
Your failure to assume good faith is troubling. I have no interest in that particular article or keeping the article as it is. I am trying to help you so that you can stay and positively contribute as an editor. I have imposed a self-ban on a number of articles that I feel passionately about because it helps me stay neutral, detached, and sane. As I said, you can take my advice and choose to do with it as you wish. Best wishes Flat Outlet's discuss it04:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An editor is not required to assume good faith when it is obvious that there is none there (a believe it is referred to as calling a duck a duck here). I realize you want me to stop editing at trajan vuia, as I also realize numerous other things which your posts have indicated. I believe I understand you perfectly.Ion G Nemes (talk) 01:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Flat Out. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:TheLongTone that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Flat Outlet's discuss it13:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply] Ah yes, anything I post is subject to rigid scrutiny, but as for TheLongTone...,apparently my required notification to him about the administrator's noticeboard is a perfectly suitable occasion for him to again make accusations against me. Ion G Nemes (talk) 01:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, every time you make a personal attack on an editor's talk page it is open to scrutiny. Further, the content of posts at ANI are not my domain seeing as I am not an administrator.Flat Outlet's discuss it01:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
About, not on the admin noticeboard. It was the rude little snippet of his I was replying to when I called him rude and childish. And I am greatly relieved that you're not an administrator for obvious reasons.Ion G Nemes (talk) 02:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I an truly disturbed by you failure to show good faith. Perhaps you should consider a voluntary edit ban on all Wikipedia edit spaces.Ion G Nemes (talk) 00:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have edited the vuia page to read exactly as it reads in my last edit repeatedly, and have repeatedly asserted that it is just a claim. The records are right there in your history, so there's no way you can deny it. I will continue to quote your opinions on this. Calling an simple editing dispute "blatant pov pushing" shows bad faith on your part, and if your temper is so out of control that you feel you must shout at me in 'all caps' while trying to order me around, I respecfully suggest that you consider a voluntary edit ban on this page, as User:Flat Out has recommended in cases like this. Cheers! Ion G Nemes (talk) 02:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
April 2015
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Traian Vuia. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. Binksternet (talk) 01:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please, do not misrepresent me in edit summaries as you did here. My edit summary was "the lead needs to summarise the key sourced points in the body of the article. The article is reliably sourced on this point so unless the body content changes the lead should reflect that" - to say "making lede match the source, as FlatOut insists it must." is not accurate. Flat Outlet's discuss it03:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not assume I am misrepresenting you. Check first. The article is reliably sourced on the point that only some accounts credit him with that march 18 hop. I continue to be distressed by your lack of good faith. Perhaps you should consider a voluntary wikiban until you can regain that sunny nature we all knew and loved. Cheers!Ion G Nemes (talk) 00:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me that you could be blocked as a result of this 3RR complaint. This might be a good time for you to respond and promise to cease reverting this article until such time as a talk page consensus favors your position. An admin could choose to block you for long-term edit warring. Options are running out, and your position is very isolated. EdJohnston (talk) 01:56, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
User: EdJohnston Good work getting that block in before I heard about it. I suppose it's pretty obvious when I generally post, so blocking me before I could reply was easy as pie. And a 30 day wiki-wide block, out of all proportion to other edit warring blocks too. I dont know why you didn't just permanently ban me from the page as well, since this is what Flatout has been trying to make happen since I tried to report his pal Longtone for calling me a fool, a paranoid monomaniac, and a sock. Wouldn't it be strange if people were actually allowed to respond to administrative action?
And dont give me that Garbage about discussing changes. I have been stonewalled on that page for months by every editor but Longtone, whose main form of communication is abuse. You accuse me of "not budging an inch" , but how does one compromise with the argument, "we dont like that reliable source posted on the page, so we will change the page to contradict that reliable source, and just keep reverting you." This violates the rules here quite clearly, but maybe the rules dont apply to binksternet, longtone, and flatout. Certainly the rules about edit warring dont. Or the rules about stonewalling or calling people names.
And of course there's no reason to appeal this block. I report somebody for posting what he thinks is my personal information on the vuia page, and HE doesn't even get warned, and the post is still there in the edit history. It is clear that, for some reason, abuse here is perfectly acceptable to the admins as long as it is directed toward me. And It is only to be expected that this inexplicable grudge would apply to any other action I take here.
Guess if and when I DO get unblocked, I'll go to whatever other administrative fora there are here with this problem on the vuia page. Not that I expect it to do any good; but I might as well confirm for myself that the admins there will be as unreasonable as you and all the admins I have yet had anything to do with have been. Ion G Nemes (talk) 03:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I had never heard of TheLongTone until you made the complaint at ANI; which I read. As a non-involved editor I saw you were getting yourself into trouble at Traian Vuia and because you had very strong views about the subject (that Traian Vuia was a lying scumbag) I suggested you stop editing the article. If you had taken my friendly advice you wouldn't be blocked. Flat Outtalk to me06:14, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would point out that the edit that Nemes wanted so much was the insertion of what it is agreed by all else is weasel wording. I have never abused Ion Nemes: I don't think calling a disruptive editor disruptive is abuse in this case, merely stating the obvious.TheLongTone (talk) 13:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
