User talk:Craft37by

Welcome!

Hello, Craft37by, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like Broken Flag records, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Broken Flag records

A tag has been placed on Broken Flag records requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Hebel and User:Sabbatino

Please stop your disruptive editing. You are saying about 'diversity of opinions', but you only saving the one opinion about GDL lecacy. So in fact you are acting opposite way. So I can describe it is as lie and duplicity. The articles that you are not allowing to edits have no something about neutral point of view, bacause it grounded in discussion of few points of few.

You clean up historical articles from any not-Lietuvan (in modern sense) line without any certain argumentation. And you deleted everything.

And that's when Grand Duchy of Lithuania article filled with the names of the princes with -as ending. But could you mention this kind of names in at least one chronicle? I am not. Same as the language. What's the proof that modern Lithuanian used the Duchy? There not, it just hypothesis and it's better for everybody to read about it not so uniquely. If I am wrong - please let me know the source proofs of this statements.

You edit's surely not grounded on Wikipedia neutral principals and very similar to vandalize what also supported by other cases, such as with Ukrainian and other slavonic-related pages. If you will no stop this erroneous activity you will be forced to be blocked from editing due negative censorship and propaganda of one historical version without any evidence.

July 2016

Hello, I'm Hebel. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Hebel. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, 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. Stop making unfounded accusations as you did on the talkpage of User:Sabbatino Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Craft37by, opinions that are contentious or even fringe, although sometimes mentioned when due are not added to Wikipedia articles as true statements as they are not supported by reliable sources. Please refrain from making such edits to Wikipedia articles as it is considered disruptive editing. Also refrain from making accusations about vandalism as you have now done twice. It's also considered disruptive. Consider in the future to discuss your issues on the talkpages of the article in front of other editors instead. Thank you. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:37, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gerard von Hebel

Dear Gerard, without this paragraph you deleting article is not objective. Please provide the original sources for:

Knighs names like Vitautas, Midaugas in original chronicles
Lithuanian as majority language
Lithuanian language first mention
Original maps (if you deleting two from my commit)

My thoughts: Ruthenian language very similar to belarusian and it showed in chronics written in next centuries. Ruthenian even called also as old-belarusian and old-ukraninan. We can say that majority people spoken Ruthenian cause it used in law and also called as 'prosta mova' ('simple language'). I call modern-lihuaninan as modern because I know the source when lithuanian language mentioned as ruthenian: "For instance, duke Keystut in 1351 commanded the Lithuanian army in the Belarusian language. In a Latin -language source (Hungarian 'Dubickaya' chronicles) it was referred to as Litvanian (lithwanice). Keystut's call in Belarusian "The ox is our discords. God is with us!" was not only correctly transliterated by the witness ("rogachina rozne nachy gospanany" — which is clearly the aforementioned phrase in Belarusian), but also correctly translated into Latin ("cornutum ...iuramentum per nos ...Deus ad nos"), thus corroborating the case." For source the statements I've posted the link to M.Ermalovich book in belarusian language and mentioned another three authors. If it's not enough - why article using same historical books instead original chronicles?

If you want to save Wikipedia in neutral position of view, please provide the sources for this questioned statements.

Before this I see no reason to delete small paragraph in pro-samogitian article. Thank you. Craft37by (talk) 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Sock puppet investigation

A SPI in which you are involved has been submitted here. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:07, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Grand Duchy of Lithuania. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:37, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Grand Duchy of Lithuania

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours 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 to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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.

The full report is now in 3RRArchive321. I'm also alerting you to the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBEE, since there seems to be some nationalist POV-pushing about the history of Lithuania. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 00:09, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Articles of interest to you are covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBEE

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

EdJohnston (talk) 00:12, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GD of Lithuania

User:Craft37bv Images that have copyright and are not demonstrably in the free domain can’t be added to Wikipedia articles. So when you’re not sure it’s best to stay away from them. I have no idea about the status of this image. We also do not add suggestive or disclaiming language to Wikipedia articles to emphasise a contentious POV that is not supported by the language and reliable sources of the article, as you did there. It makes for bad and suggestive writing and will be challenged and removed. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:08, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

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. Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iryna Harpy, Okay, thank you. I am a novice editor here. Craft37by (talk) 11:14, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Grand Duchy of Lithuania shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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.
Please continue the discussion on the article's talk page and do not re-add the content. -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 10:51, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Shark Quest

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Draft:Shark Quest, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Legacypac (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Shark Quest has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Shark Quest. Thanks! Legacypac (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lithuania and Belarus are covered by discretionary sanctions

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

EdJohnston (talk) 16:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned

Vilna Governorate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Samogitia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Your editing has been mentioned on my talk page. Usage of fringe theories is one of the complaints. You can respond on my talk page if you wish. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:32, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you revert again at Vilna Governorate or any of the other pages in dispute an administrator may decide to ban you from all editing about Eastern Europe. It's in your interest to open some discussions and wait till others agree with you. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, EdJohnston. Thank you for information. Joining the discussion on your page. Craft37by (talk) 18:49, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Craft37by. The next time you make a revert at History of Belarus or other articles related to Lithuania, without first getting a consensus in your favor on the talk page, you may be blocked. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:28, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have few days conversation about the topics and I still can't find any reasonable arguments, EdJohnston. What about you? Why it's possible to remove the content without argumenting? I only can understand this like vandalism and protecting soviet propaganda. Reverting Belarus page seems like a joke. Why Polotsk Principally map changed to Kiev Principally ?? Keiv not even situated in Belarus, Polotsk IS. If I will be blocked in this absurd situation I will be claiming about it cause it's illogical and contradicts the free spirit of wikipedia. Thank you. Craft37by (talk) 19:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You choose to participate here, so you need to understand that *our* policies apply to these articles. Your calling the current pages a 'joke' doesn't affect our decision making process. If you continue to use the term 'vandalism' incorrectly about other editors you are risking a block. EdJohnston (talk) 20:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston, how can I understand removing original english-writen book quotes with 'grammar issues' formulation? Logically thinking if it's not about vandalism - it's about censorship and protecting propaganda. I know how it was in USSR.. HISTORY articles should have basis on documents not fantasies, and I think moderation will agree with that as axioma and part of Wikipedia policy, which barely lead to long process of decisioning. Cheers. Craft37by (talk) 21:11, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for Personal attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.

Per this comment, where you accuse User:Sabbatino of being "just a liar in service of Moscow propaganda". You have also incorrectly charged Sabbatino with vandalism. EdJohnston (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Grand Duchy of Lithuania, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bernardines (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Your recent editing at Belarus shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. Oliszydlowski, 11:28, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

I do not know who you think you are but stop the misconceptions and adding a 'Lithuanian-Polish Commonwealth'. There was no such state and obviously you are idolizing some kind of litvin ideology instead of sticking to facts sadly. Thanks. You are being warned again. Stop persistent vandalism and edit war. Just because somebody is from Vilnius doesn't make them Belarusian. Oliszydlowski, 11:12, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oliszydlowski, real misconception is when Commonwealth widely represented as 'Poland' itself. There WAS such state - confederation, and I just sorted two parts of them alphabetically. Every adding I support with facts. For beginning, I suggest you to read memories of closest Pilsudski friend - of Lucjan Żeligowski . Book called - 'Zapomniane prawdy' (Forgotten trues). After reading you will never complain about some 'ideology'. Read some Bogusz historian. I am not even started a war but sharing the facts. Just because 1887 report document is a fact - Pilsukdki called himself as Belarusian nobleman. Neither he or Mickievicz (who wrote 'LITWO, OJCZYZNO MOJA!') or Koscziusko (who wrote "jestem Litwinem, Najjaśniejszy Panie") - if they knew polish doesn't make them ethnically Polish. And believe me, you will not stop sharing this facts by your possible 'POV vandalism'. I want to believe in your discretion. Have a nice day.

There is no such country as Lithuania-Poland nor it was ever referred to like this. It's either Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth or Poland-Lithuania. Also, the article title is "First Partition of Poland" not the "partition of Lithuanian-Polish Commonwealth. Stick to facts. Oliszydlowski, 21:14, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Oliszydlowski Oh, really there is difference between 'Lithuania-Poland' and 'Poland-Lithuania' Confederation? Still it's not Poland itself. You know, last time when Poland disrespect their allies in 17-19 centuries - it become 'Kraj Privislenski', province of Moscow Empire. My dear chauvinist friend, have you really learned this lesson of history? Craft37by (talk) 14:21, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a big difference as lawfully Poland was dominant in the union and Lithuania ceased to exist after the 3 May Constitution. It even says on the page. Similarly to England's dominance over Scotland and Wales. And thanks again for your personal comment, but you also display chauvinism from some kind of Litvin-Bealrusian side. Regardless, it's best to discuss such things and stay civilised. Oliszydlowski, 14:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

About dominance - it's very questionable cause two parts of union have ceparate army, laws, money systems for centuries and Poland joined the commonwealth as a ~1/3 part of it territorially. How 3 may Constitution from 1791 connected with 1780 map caption? Generally, this constitution left only on paper for Lithuania - Statutes of Grand Duchy of Lithuania still was active till 1840s and even 1860s on territory of modern Ukraine. I totally agree with your idea of staying civilized and I am very happy that you ended with alternative when Commonwealth actually mentioned: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Belarus&diff=853383975&oldid=853382766 Thank you. Craft37by (talk) 09:21, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Long term POV pushing about Lithuania

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for Disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.

Per the discussions on my talk page and the complaints about you there by other editors, as well as the previous blocks in your block log, including one for personal attacks. You show no insight into the problem of your unusual POV about the history of Lithuania (described by others as 'Litvinist') and there is no indication you are going to wait for consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 04:09, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston, do you really mean that consensus is 'voluntarily stop editing Wikipedia'? Still I got no answer on my complain on a bunch of ungrounded deletions for unknown reasons. So I understand your activity as an act of covering actually vandalism against me personally AND certain censorship against whole wikipedia community. Blocking is a revenge for my demand for detailed explanations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EdJohnston#Concerned_with_edits_made_by_user_Sabbatino

About 'litvinism - that's very similar to the Kremlin experts vocabulary, for which I informed you with bright example.

In 2016 Director of the Russian Institute for Strategic Studies retired Lt. Gen. Reshetnikov said to belarusian Radio Liberty literally this: "... At independence, do not declare themselves as part of "litvinsky" history. (in belarusian: ня трэба аб’яўляць сябе часткаю «ліцьвінскай» гісторыі.) You do not want to be proud of Dostoevsky and Pushkin, and you want to be proud of Mickiewicz? It's just awful ...". Link is: https://www.svaboda.org/a/raszetnikau-havoryc/28192683.html .

Later this interview released the scandal at the level of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs: https://www.svaboda.org/a/28190866.html (Belarusian Foreign Ministry expressed protest to Russia in connection with the statement by the Director of the Russian Institute for Strategic Studies).

So I have all reasons to suspect 'others' in cooperating with ideological department of russian special agencies. Maybe that's about you also? Craft37by (talk) 09:08, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:58, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unreasonable blocking by EdJohnston

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).

Craft37by (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Confirming that the block is in fact not necessary to prevent damage or disruption. === Why I believe I should be unblocked? === I've blocked with no really grounded reason by case in the past while starting reporting suspicious activity of the user Sabbatino (talk) with superficial consideration of the matter by EdJohnston (talk) Moderator EdJohnson indicated the following: * Disruptive editing: Pushing of unusual nationalist POV about history of Lithuania. Objection: There is no examples of such activity but I've blocked exactly in same time while asking concrete explanations about deleting content added by me, which still have not grounded. I didn't get an explanation why the graphical additions (which are the works of European cartographers of the 17-18 centuries) are deleted due to poor grammar. The information from the primary sources was deleted and the reasons were not explained. Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EdJohnston/Archive_45#Concerned_with_edits_made_by_user_Sabbatino_2 Until this I see the removal of such information as a true manifestation of POV vandalism. That's contradicts the neutral comprehensive, objective study of the issue which is Wikipedia values. * Personal attacks. Objection: In rules PA are described as "Accusations about personal behavior that LACK evidence". Generally, my assumptions (which I underlined with the word SEEMS) HAVE evidence so couldn't be described as personal attack. So block doesn't violates wikipedia blocking policy. Days later I reported on the similarity of the lexicon of the Kremlin's ideologue and user (talk) - not to offend anyone, but to clarify my suspicions. Did not receive an intelligible answer but got block via this episode: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Craft37by#Personal_attacks, which already issued a warning and there were no prerequisites for its recurrence. I don't have any personal claims, but spoke about the activity of another user whom I suspect in vandalism. * Unwilling to wait for consensus Objection: This is a very vague formulation that I have not found in the rules. It is enough to stretch the consensus in time and this will be an instrument of censorship and a departure from the values of Wikipedia. As I see there is still no even explanations around deleting my addings, discussion was archived and I was blocked with no will to find consensus around edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EdJohnston/Archive_45#Concerned_with_edits_made_by_user_Sabbatino_2. Thanks for attention to this really unusual case. I hope for a fair consideration of the matter.

Decline reason:

You are blocked for abuse of multiple accounts. None of the above statements address this. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:55, 5 September 2018 (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.

Yunshui, Multiple account are allowed by rules so couldn't be the reason of blocking and I should be unblocked: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Legitimate_uses . BTW, there is no proofs that I am using multiple accounts. Craft37by (talk) 13:51, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple accounts are allowed under very specific circumstances, which do not apply here. You have been abusing multiple accounts to create the illusion of support for your viewpoint, which is considered abuse. As to proof - allow me to introduce you to the checkuser tool.

If you're going to get all legal-eagle at us, you ought to at least read the policies you're (mis-)quoting... Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yunshui, hello. Well, thanks for the information and your time to support the community driven. My only motivation was to share the information which is support really neutral point of view. When my mentions of contemporaries was deleted as personal content\POV without real explanations and was covered, rightly or not, by the administrator without due attention (which I also understand because we are limited in time)- I was very disappointed and probably lost believe in fair trial.. Thanks for your answer. Craft37by (talk) 10:04, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Second unreasonable blocking by EdJohnston

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).

Craft37by (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Confirming that the block contradicts Wikipedia rules. I've blocked with no really grounded reason by case in the past while starting reporting suspicious activity of the user Sabbatino with superficial consideration of the matter by EdJohnston. So EdJohnson indicated the following: * Multiple accounts Objection: Multiple account are allowed by rules so couldn't be the reason of blocking and I should be unblocked: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Legitimate_uses . BTW, there were no proofs reported that I use multiple accounts. With hope for a fair consideration of the matter Craft37by (talk) 15:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Pro-tip: Lecturing us about blocking policy is annoying. Calling another admin "unreasonable" makes you look bad. Almost forgot-- quasi legalese is annoying. This is not a court of law. Posturing wastes time better spent elsewhere. See boilerplate blah-blah that follows. You should reread the WP:GAB. I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:07, 5 September 2018 (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.

See also User:Džordanas Brunas. They were CU-blocked by DQ as a sock of this account. GAB^gab 18:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What the checkuser hath blocked let no mere admin unblock. Thus hath it been written; thus shall it be done.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:13, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlohcierekim: I would like to add that beside User:Džordanas Brunas, there are also three IPs (46.53.178.122, 86.57.247.119 (already blocked for 3 months), 109.126.131.113) and User:Kirylpl (new but already blocked user). All of them (3 IPs and 1 user) have restored content, which was added by Craft37by at some point. All of those IPs point to Minsk, Belarus, which makes it clear that these three IPs are/were used to restore the blocked user's additions, which shows that there is/was an abuse of multiple accounts (registered or not, but that is still socking). And the newest but already blocked User:Kirylpl has done exactly the same when it added the grammatically poor and POV content for which Craft37by has been blocked. Of course, I am not an administrator, but his block should either be extended or made indefinite due to the abuse of unblock requests and/or failure to address the reasons for being blocked. – Sabbatino (talk) 11:42, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dlohcierekim, hello. Despite I like your less formal views and sharing it - I believe we are here probably organized by rules so I not consider legalese as annoying. I might be lose some "shade" cause I am not native speaker, but by 'unreasonable block' I mean lack of reason, block without certain examples which correlate to rules - ungrounded. Thanks for the answer. Craft37by (talk) 08:13, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request to revert not necessary blocking

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).

Craft37by (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello. I believe the original block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia cause there no proofs or certain examples that my activity not useful for the community. POV claims are lack of explanations which is suggested by rules: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:POV. My invitations for Talk page to Sabbatino for finding consensus was ignored. I was getting reverts with general formulations like 'bad content' I never got any detailed deciphering of such concepts. I never got explanations of 'good authors' and 'bad authors' and it getting seems like a personal censorship by Sabbatino.. Administrator EdJohnston seems to have missed all these circumstances when making a decision of blocking. Second block around multiple accounts accordingly has no force because there were no proofs and multiple accounts are not forbidden. In addition to many arguments which you can see above on my talk page - I want to report that I only adding information with references, always holding neutral scientific position. I noticed that articles around Grand Duchy of Lithuania lacks of many sources which are in open access nowdays in Google Books or rare maps collections sites. Also information in article a bit distorted cause based on lietuvian authors books which is over-patriotized. As I believe that Wikipedia is the place for wide information representation from many angles - I struggling to add british, german, french, etc. sources. Many of which are primary sources which is especially valuable. Original maps of contemporaries are very neutral. Generally, my activity addings always mentioned third-party references, not personal\POV. Thanks for your time. Sorry for bothering but I want to protect my right and continue to make useful contributions for better Wikipedia. Craft37by (talk) 09:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

To be blunt, no. Creating sock puppets to push your POV is the antithesis of what Wikipedia is about. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:53, 6 September 2018 (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.

Open letter to EdJohnston

Hello, EdJohnston.

Well, I am sorry if I acted emotional in past but that's was caused by removals of the information which I hardly prepared in free time to share. Again, please let me know, what's wrong with my certain additions? Does it lack references? What is criteria of bad references?

Here is the rules around POV ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:POV ) which are informs - 'Please also explain on the article's talk page why you are adding this tag, identifying specific issues that are actionable within Wikipedia's content policies.'

Ed, I never met any explanations in article talk pages from Sabbatino - he just constantly removed by edits all together.

Here is the examples of removals which I collected and they are not explained even month later: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EdJohnston/Archive_45#Concerned_with_edits_made_by_user_Sabbatino_2

Is it really well? Thanks for you time. Waiting for your answer. Craft37by (talk) 09:43, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Craft37by, You really like to argue, don't you. Reread the guide to appealing blocks, please.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:23, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My inclination is to block talk page access. The purpose of which is to appeal blocks, not write open letters and argue with admins. I'll leave that for another. I'm also inclined to lengthen the current block, as you don't seem to understand why you were blocked, think this is a debating society, and are apt to cause further disruption when your block expires.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:27, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Repeated failure to address the reason for the block - actively evasive responses, in most cases - and an obvious case of NOTHERE means there is no benefit to keeping access to this page open. Talkpage access revoked; if - as seems likely - your current unblock request is declined, you may appeal via UTRS. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sabbatino: Please post your evidence at WP:SPI. Might also need a checkuser.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:47, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CU has been done, the two sock accounts have been blocked and tagged. I've created an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Craft37by which is technically ready for archiving since I've completed the CU check; @Sabbatino: if you want to raise an investigation for the IP addresses I'd suggest you start a new SPI. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Yunshui: Why not just add those IPs to the report about the user? Because it is evident that they belong to the blocked user (random IPs would not just come and restore content). – Sabbatino (talk) 12:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tidiness. SPIs shouldn't really be edited after they've been closed, and they get closed automatically if (as I did) you add the CU results when creating the page. There would also be some confusion (since CU won't publicly tie IPs to accounts) if they were added to the existing page. Better to create a new section on the report; you can do so here. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Yunshui:

Done – Sabbatino (talk) 15:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

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 ~~~~}}. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:47, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]