Samofi, you seem like you might be a reasonable editor. I see no reason why I would have to to block you right now if you agree to respect your topic ban. Could you just lay off anything that involves Hungarian or Slovakian identities until your topic ban is successfully appealed? Thank you, NW(Talk)14:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for April 7
Hi. When you recently edited Betyárs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Orava (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Please check your source again. (the freedictionary.com). And you will see that the cited sentence on the talk page of Kingdom of Hungary (1538-1867) is not conditional. It is past tense.Fakirbakir (talk) 12:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since you were blocked for defying your topic ban, it seems apparent to me (from technical evidence) that you edited from at least one account - User:Savneli - in order to circumvent that block. I have therefore blocked your account indefinitely. AGK[•]23:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I swear that User:Savneli is not my sockpuppet. Iam not liar, it must be mistake. I was in hospital, its senseless.
Btw, my edit at kingdom of hungary was this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kingdom_of_Hungary&diff=488332622&oldid=488332294 I added "citation needed" and "dubious" tags, but Iam "topic-banned indefinitely from all Hungarian-Slovak national and ethnicity issues", it has nothing to do with Hungarian-Slovak national and ethnicity issues. So this one month long ban was unjustified. But again, Iam not User:Savneli, I was in HOSPITAL and this user is not me.
Thank you, I cannot react there. About answer of Nmate, I made one sockpuppet - CsabaBabba, later I admit that it was me and I was sorry about that (btw it was Nmate who told that CsabaBabba is not me). It was 2 years ago and once. So I dont want to be judging because of this mistake 2 years ago and I was sorry about that. --Samofi (talk) 10:09, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I would like to be unblock. This block is unrightful. Its second time that I was blocked for sock-puppets which were not mine (here it was first time: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Samofi&diff=404783293&oldid=404715445). I had no chance to advocate myself coz I was in hospital when admin AGK blocked me. I had not internet access when my supposed sock-puppet made his edits. I have much more different style of writing as user Savneli. It noticed CoolKoon also and he started the ANI thread: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive751#Indefing_of_User:Samofi. My topics and style of editing are different than user Savneli done. I really dont know why AGK blocked me, coz he had not enough evidences, so he exceed a good manners at least. Week after my block, when I came back home, I wrote him e-mails but he ignored my emails. So I wanna be unblock by official way. I dont want to be connecting with trolling maniac. I made mistakes here and I had conflicts with some editors, so I have topic ban, but this indef is ridiculous. I wanna edit mostly Slovak geographical, economical and history related articles. --Samofi (talk) 08:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC) Now :I saw that Savneli is marked as sock-puppet of Bizovne, so its no reason for my ban anymore: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Savneli --Samofi (talk) 11:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
Above, you clearly stated you've been socking, and from what I see found, with more than one account. Even if that particular account wasn't you (which I'm in no way agreeing to, mind you), you need to address the issue that you were socking, or no one will even entertain the idea of unblocking you. How is it we can trust you not to sock anymore if we unblock you? SeraphimbladeTalk to me07:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
So once again. I have not used sock-puppet for a 2 years and I was blocked because of this for a half year. My only sock-puppet was CsabaBabba and "second sock" was my IP when I did not notice I am not logged - it was more than 2 years ago. From that time nothing like that happened - its 2 years. Next two suspected socks were of user Iaaasi, he confessed to these two socks [2]. So again, it was not me. Savneli is obvious sock of Bizovne and I am blocked because of this [3][4]. So am I blocked because Savneli is sock-puppet of Bizovne? Or because I used CsabbaBabba 2 years ago? I dont see a reason for this block, its unrightful. According to WP:OFFER its enough time 0,5 year without socking. Iam 2 years and now I am blocked because of Bizovne´s sock. I have no reasons to use socks. Users here made a sockpuppeter from me, because of socks of Iaaasi. If this would not happen I will never make a CsabaBabba account. Last 1,5 year I edit articles and I had a one edit war (I was blocked) and problems with topic ban (I was blocked). I understood why I was blocked and changed my behavior. But this block is ridiculous and unrightful. --Samofi (talk) 05:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
You've admitted to using multiple accounts in the past. You are disputing whether the current socking charge is correct, but we would like to see some history of good behavior before unblocking. Consider making use of WP:OFFER and trying to stay away from the English Wikipedia for six months under any account or IP. If you are able to refrain from sockpuppetry here and do some good work on another language Wikipedia during that time, it would count in your favor. EdJohnston (talk) 17:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Please note that once an unblock request has been declined, you should not revert and rewrite it - you should add a whole new unblock request below it. I have now restored the declined unblock request that you removed. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Boing! said Zebedee, I did not know about this. But all this situation is strange I was in hospital and when I came home I was blocked. Savneli is not me, its Bizovne. I made sock-puppet 2 years ago, but I was blocked 2 years ago and unblocked 1,5 year ago. Iam not "master of puppets" so I dont understand why Iam banned... And decline of my ban was not based on evidences but on the subjective opinion ending with rhetorical question...--Samofi (talk) 05:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, now I understand the difference between a WP:BLOCK and a WP:BAN policies. I did not know about WP:BAN (I am not admin) and I used it as synonymous, sorry. In fact I am disabled to edit articles (I thought in this case it doesnt matter if I call it block, ban or restriction..). --Samofi (talk) 13:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Something different
Nazdar,
Neviem, ci si to tu este citas, ale pre istotu si to skusim. Uvidel som totiz dneska nieco, co je mozne, ze mas na svedomi ty. Napadlo ma totiz, ze ked si (zrejme z pocitu ukrivdenosti, zlosti a frustracie) napisal tie blogy o madarskej dominancii na anglickej wikipedii, asi si si vobec nedomyslel, to co moze mat za nasledky. Na sme.sk som totiz dneska nasiel toto. Potom som tam nasiel este aj toto, z coho mi bolo jasne, ze sa ti podarilo napachat poriadnu skodu. Totiz sudiac podla horeuvedenych prispevkov sa mi zda, ze tvoje vycitky a obvinovacky voci Madarom mali za nasledok, ze niektori to pochopili uplne zle a myslia si, ze celu (zrejme aj slovensku) Wikipediu pisu len Madari. Teda bolo by dobre, keby si bol ty za obidvoma prispevkami, ale zda sa mi, ze nemame to stastie. Ja chapem, ze pre niektorych dotieravych madarskych editorov (a pre fakt, ze nie kazdy tu zdiela tvoju posadnutost s nahradzania madarskych nazvov obci slovenskymi) si sa chcel nejakym sposobom pomstit alebo nieco, lenze fakt sa s takymi obvineniami musi narabat opatrne, lebo rychlo sa ti to moze vymknut z ruk. A potom sa moze stat, ze cynicki citatelia diskusii nepojdu editovat ani na slovenske wiki, lebo "pisu to madarski fasisti". A to je velka skoda aj napriek tomu, ze mi strasne vadi na nich poslovencenie madarskych priezvysk (co osobne neznasam), lebo je naozaj v zalostnom stave a bez editorov sa to nikdy nezmeni k lepsiemu. A to by potom kazdy musel citat mytologicke dristy vo vydani Matice a spol. (lebo ziadne ine "lahke citanie" sa nenajde), co dufam, ze nechces ani ty. -- CoolKoon (talk) 01:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.
I would like to ask about 2 things. The first one is more actual, Iam blocked so I have to make it by this way. 1: I have noticed a lot of POV pushing from problematic (lot of times blocked user - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ANmate) Nmate, he is pushing original research and unsourced matherials to the plenty articles about Slovak villages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Nmate). It looks like a spamming and nationalistic agenda - its same text in all villages (Kingdom of Hungary in 9th century? Occupation by Czechoslovak troops? Its pro-hungarian propaganda. Kingdom was established in 11th century - coronation of Saint Stephen in 1001 and territory of Slovakia was incorporated to Hungarian kingdom till 13th century). 2: I still dont understand why am I blocked now. I did not use sock-puppets for a years. For Csabba-Babba I was blocked 2 years ago (6 months long block) and Savneli was sock of Bizovne. So I am 4 months blocked without valid reason. Also my topic ban.. Some Hungarian editors write here nationalistic propaganda and fairy-tales, I can find a lot of examples. But blocked are mostly Slovak editors with different opinion. Show me one Slovak editor which interests about history who was not blocked or under restrictions. It looks like a ethnic discrimination of the opinion of Slovak editors. I have historical knowledge and I can be fertile in this topic area. Where is neutrality of Wikipedia? With one not neutral opinion will level of Wikipedia in this topic area descending. Is it possible to open my case in arbitration? I would like to explain this situation. Thank you. --Samofi (talk) 06:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your first question: your most recent block was a checkuserblock put in place by AGK, a checkuser and member of the arbitration committee. I am not in a position to say what technical evidence he had that was the basis for that block, but AGK is a trusted long-term administrator who knows what he is doing, so he must have been sure. The best way forward if you wish to open an arbitration case or discuss your block is to contact the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org. I am not going to comment on the content dispute. -- Dianna (talk) 14:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored talkpage access now per our e-mail correspondence. To anyone else coming here; if I see anything that resembles grave dancing or trolling, I'll be very quick to block. Come and bitch on my talkpage if you feel you absolutely must, but keep it off here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom unblock appeal
The Arbitration Committee has carefully considered the user's appeal and has declined to unblock at this time. After six months of not editing Wikipedia under any account including IP accounts the user may again apply to have the block reviewed.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Dear administrators. For almost a year I did not edit the English Wikipedia, and there are no further evidences of my other sock-puppets. So I would like to start with a clean sheet and I would like to pursue a geographic and economic issues associated with Slovakia. These issues are underdeveloped and I would like to help to community to expand them. I am aware of my problematic behavior in the past and I believe that I am able to control myself now. Thank you. Samofi (talk) 11:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
Due to the reasons for the initial block and the subsequent unblock requests, you will need to appeal to ArbCom if you would like this block to be lifted. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
The Ban Appeals Subcommittee has considered your appeal, and decided to unblock you under the terms of Wikipedia's standard offer. You are unblocked on condition that you edit from this account (User:Samofi) only; if you deliberately edit anonymously, or edit from any other account, without permission from the Wikipedia community or this subcommittee, you may be summarily and indefinitely reblocked by any uninvolved administrator. For the Ban Appeals Subcommittee, WormTT(talk) 12:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for November 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Košice-okolie District, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Roma people and Turňa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
