User talk:Aserafin

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).

Aserafin (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Insert your reason to be unblocked here Aserafin (talk) 22:13, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You're either trolling or incompetent. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:12, 17 August 2022 (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.

Welcome!

Hello, Aserafin!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for unblock

1) First above all the action of the administrator (Ponyo) was definitely too rapid. And BLOCK INDEFINITELY!!!!? No warnings and asking about my edits. 2) Regarding my edits, I am beekeeper and I am Polish. Jan Dzierzon and his history and works is my high interest. I know almost everything about this subject. 3) Honestly, I see many editors works in packs, one supporting others by cronyism - they do not question ask outsider of reasons; if outsider stands up against friend, they supports each other indiscriminately. Non of the following of Richard Keatinge; Brunton and Ponyo spent any time to discus the essence of the conflict. Richard Keatinge was obstinate with introducing text: "possibly using ideas from Petro Prokopovych's widely-publicized developments." My final conclussion you can read on Brunton' talk page. 4) Brunton and obviously Ponyo did not bother to read and answer to my questions, conclusion and requests. Richard Keatinge and Brunton never responded to logic and explanation why the "resource" should not be there. Their favorite respond was - "appeal to board" or other annoying advice what I should do instead discus the historical and technical details regarding scientific facts . My understanding of editing of Wikipedia is science, logic and cooperation. Most above all discussing facts. I do not see their behavior is suitable. 5) Next I experienced the rapid and infinitive block from Ponyo. He did not ask or look on details of the case. I believe he should look on my extended notes on "View history". Secondly he should look on my last replay to Brunton talk page "Value of resources" 20:02, 17 August 2022, but I do not think he did. On 20:18, 17 August 2022 (16 minutes after the last my note, Ponyo BLOCKED me INDEFFINITELY - no questions ask. 6)The last replay to Brunton I mentioned above says: "One basic point is that to say "possibly there is something" is not informative. Imagine asking somebody on the intersection. When you ask somebody about location of a store, for example. And the person says: "possibly it is there", nothing more. Is the information any value to you who looking for the store. Wikipedia suppose to be informative place, this is no place for noninformative junk." And I think my understanding is the essence of the non-informative edits. 7) And finaly NinjaRobotPirate - I started to write the reasons for unblocking 23:10, 17 August 2022.‎ I did not not edited this "Reasons for unblocks". His decision of refuse of unblocking was 23:12, 17 August 2022. Uf!!!‎ HOW WOULD YOU FEEL in my shoos? Aserafin (talk) 23:50, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from another talk page

Hi, there are two notes to you on Dzierzon talk page, and one note on Beehive talk page. Have the Best Aserafin (talk) 17:52, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are next note to you on Dzierzon article talk. Also you did not responded to my two notes on Beehive talk page. Regards, Aserafin (talk) 23:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Please note that it is not necessary, nor useful, to post here in order to attract attention to pages that I have recently edited and are on my watchlist. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:57, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I got it. I believe you will keep the responses in reasonable time. If I am working I looking for results. I hate if others editors keep and extending time for sake to change wrong inserts just to egocentric point of view. Aserafin (talk) 23:37, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Please also note that almost every contributor to Wikipedia is contributing voluntarily and in their spare time. If you expect other editors to respond on your timetable you are likely to suffer disappointment, and if you insult them and fail to assume their good faith you may find that your welcome loses some of its warmth. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:15, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, you are telling me someone editing a bs. and after he starts discussion to keep the bs. He extends it to infinity and accuses others of starting an editing war. Are you? That is what I feel about you who do not want to remove evident propaganda bs. about Prokopovich hive. You have NO evidence that any idea of Prokopovich design was used by Dzierzon, neither the guys telling so at Apimodia. But you say it is good practice and use word PROBABLY. If you have no evidence probability is equal ZERO and you can not use word PROBABLY Aserafin (talk) 06:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Sources Noticeboard

If you don’t think the source is adequate for the text it is being used to support, the best place to discuss this is probably WP:RSN, where you will find people familiar with the issues involved, who should be able to come to a reasonably reliable consensus. Brunton (talk) 18:30, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Block notice

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for long-term edit warring and an apparent inability to collaborate civilly. I note that your edit warring over the same article(s) also led to your block on de.wiki, signifying that this is a single-purpose account determined to push your point of view.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:18, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]