User talk:Conttest

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).

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

---

Request reason:

see below motivation

Decline reason:

Obvious sock puppet of User:Iaaasi. Talk page editing access revoked. –MuZemike 07:16, 12 May 2010 (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.

Unblock request

Good morning

I am the owner of the blocked accounts User:iaaasi, User:Ddaann2, User:Umumu and User:conttest and I send you this message because I want to ask you a great favor: to be given a last chance and to be unblocked under strict observation (at the smallest break of a wiki rule to be blocked again). I really am a fan of wikipedia and want to try to bring improvements in some articles, not to disturb others.

I think the block of an user should be firstly a measure to protect Wikipedia against people who try to sabot it by destructive edits, not a punishment for someone who did something wrong without intent, so I hope I can find understanding...

I know it hasn't passed much time since I was sanctioned, but now I am not o newbie here anymore and I understood more clearly what WP means and I think I will not repeat the mistakes of the past..

I understood my mistakes and the reasons for my block and I changed my behaviour. Considering that my punsihment was too harsh, I started the new accounts, and the goal was not to perpetuate destructions, but to continue good work and the constructive edits. I made all my edits in good faith, but I was discovered and blocked again. My edits were judged after their author, not by their content. It was speculated that I am oficially a banned user and I have no right to contribute on wikipedia. I don't want to edit articles anymore from ilegal accounts

My activity on WP

General

My activity on WP began oficially on June 9, 2009 (in practice on 2 January 2010 - 2 edits between these 2 dates) and I concentrated to topics regarding Transylvania, a region which is important in the history of both Romania and Hungary. A few times I met excesses of Hungarian users and I tried to correct them. I did not have warful intentions, but some disputes were unfortunately inevitable.

First edits and first hostile reaction of the Hungarian users

My first edit occured at the article Matthias Corvinus where existed at that time this affirmation:

“ Matthias Corvinus [...], the second son of John Hunyadi, a successful military leader of Hungarian[3] and Cuman[4] descent ”

Source 3: unverfiable Hungarian source (without link, but I did not contest it)
Source 4: Catholic Encyclopedia

The article from Catholic Encyclopedia about Matthias Corvinus contained the following text: "King of Hungary, son of Janos Hunyady and Elizabeth Szilagyi of Horogssey,". A search after the word "Cuman" showed that it was not mentioned at all in the presented source => false reference

I opened the article Janos Hunyadi (Matthias Corvinus' father) from Catholic Encyclopediaant I found the affirmation In view of modern investigations it may be taken as proved that the family of Hunyadi was of Rumanian origin

I replaced "Cuman" with "Romanian" (adding as reference Britannica, where it was specified " John's father, the knight Woyk (or Vajk), who was of Romanian descent". The alleged Hungarian origin of the mother was specificied before his father's, even if it is known the fact that in the medieval period the latter one is more relevant . ASo I changed the order and I made the sentence like that: "the second son of John Hunyadi, a successful military leader of Romanian (ref: Britannica) and Hungarian descent"

User:Hobartimus partially reverted my edit, with no clear explanation, even if what I've done was 100% correct (he reinserted the wrong referenced info).

In January 2010 I wrote:

“ He was second son of John Hunyadi, a successful Hungarian General of Romanian origin ”

but Hobartimus corrected my edit and the new version was

“ He was second son of John Hunyadi, a successful Hungarian General of either Romanian (according to Romanians) or Cuman (according to Hungarians) ancestry and Hungarian descent ”

Note that the Romanian source was Encyclopedia Britannica, while the Hungarian source was Catholic Encyclopedia, where the word Cuman is not even mentioned.

“ He was second son of John Hunyadi, a successful Hungarian General of Romanian origin ”

Finally my version was accepted and it exists even today in the article

Other disputes

I was accused of attempts of eliminating Hungarian names from Romania. In fact the administrators confirmed my opinions every time
- it was confirmed that my suggestion that a template created by a Hungarian user is inappropriate is correct
- The administrator confirmed that the format supported by me was the better one
- My wish of keeping the Romanian name for the Hungarian leader György Dózsa was considered on the end justified

Block log

Because of lack of experience on wikipedia and because of not knowing the policies I ended up being blocked. Here it is my block log :

First block

1. 21:30, 13 January 2010 EdJohnston (talk | contribs) blocked Iaaasi (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Edit warring: at Hungary, per a complaint at WP:AN3)

I tried to add the positions of Hungary's neighboring countries and to change Carpathian Basin with Pannonian Basin (these terms have the same meaning, but the latter is more common and gives the title of the WP article), but I was reverted. The resulting edit war brought me a 3RR block

Second block

2. 12:09, 6 February 2010 PeterSymonds (talk | contribs) blocked Iaaasi (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (Edit warring or violation of the three-revert rule: Template:Mureş County)

User:Nmate reported me on a subject where the presumed edit war enemy, User:Rokarudi, accepted that my edit was made in good faith and it was not a conflict there

Final block

3.16:55, 6 March 2010 Bogdangiusca (talk | contribs) blocked Iaaasi (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Disruptive editing)

I was blocked after a message posted by a user on a admin talk page, and the accusatio nwas only partially correct

I was accused of edits to weed out all references to dual citizenship for some Romanians and Hungarians

Here it was an edit war between IP 71.192.241.118 and Rokarudi:
- IP 71.192.241.118 tried to add dual citizenship to Romanian-born Hungarians and Rokarudi did not feel best about that
- In exchange, Rokarudi started adding dual citizenship for different Romanian personalities born outside Romania's border. He even vandalized an article about writing that someone was Hungarian-born, even if he was born on Romania.

- In that moment I tried to edit these articles according to this : In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable / Previous nationalities and/or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability.. I also supported Rokarudi when I realized he was right

I was accused of sockpuppetry

I was falsely accused, based on the ortographic similarity between the names User:Iasi and User:iaaasi of being the banned user User:Bonaparte. He was blocked a long time ago (in 2007) and was very probably a User from the city of Iaşi, because he possessed the accounts User:ŞtefanIaşi and User:Iasi. My IP of User:iaaasi is from Craiova (dynamic ip 79.117.x.x.). User:Fred Bauder confirmed me in an email that unfortunately User:Bonaparte is too old for a Check User. I am really sorry that I was confused with this famous sockmaster

User:Rokarudi's opninion about me

Rokarudi is a Hungarian user that I interacted a lot with.

As to Iaaasi, unlike most Hungarians editors, I had a good personal relationship with him, so I do not care too much whether he is Bonaparte or not. He was hot-headed sometimes (like me), so I was sorry when was banned for that ominous user page design which I think he created in desperation not for hatred for Hungarians. Happy Easter next week. Kind regarsd: --Rokarudi 11:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Some of the useful contributions

Creation of New articles

Great Banship of Craiova, Romanian Golden Team, Transylvanian Plain, Pătraşcu cel Bun (not expanded them enough yet)

Reversal of vandalism of IPs

[7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]

Actions against Romanian ultra-nationalism

I am not anti-Hungarian or a Romanian ultra-nationaslist so I:

- added text that debunked Michael the Brave's image as an unifier of the Romanians.

- readded HUNGARIAN an German name for Romanian city of Timisoara.

The activity of Hungarian users

These is not an attempt to blame others for my actions, but a try to present the general context

The editors from WikiProject Hungary (Nmate, Squash Racket, Hobartimus and Rokarudi), the users that I had disputes with, have clahes on other pages too, so I am not the primary source of the conflicts: Battle of Pressburg, Kosice,Hungary-Slovakia relations, John Hunyadi

If I will be unblocked I promise that I will try to avoid such edit wars, choosing instead dispute resolution methods

Can you please check my last contributions on the new accounts and unblock my old one (User:iaaasi) if it is possible? I hope you can give me a last chance because I am not here to make disruptive edits. Thanks in advance