User talk:Geocourrier

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 18:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not suitable for these articles to be merged, as the current reverting has so far shown consensus against you. The Pro-Italian Maltese, while yes, a result of Italo-Maltese relations, are not the same thing, and are very much notable - have you ever read a history book? Geocourrier (talk) 16:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All this sudden interest from a newly registered user for a page that has been a redirect for more than a week is at very least suspicious. I will be reverting your edits for now, in the meantime, I suggest you to read my discussion with User:Right2 in Pro-Italian Maltese, that is, if you're not him.--Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 17:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suspect what you wish: if you believe me to be User:Right2, then file an SPI. Your next revert will be your last. Consider this an official warning. Geocourrier (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, PML has now accused me of being you, Right2. I suggest that if PML wishes not to undergo the consequences of lack of good faith, he shall either file the SPI, or accept that I have no connection to the user.

If you do not trust who I am though, I will openly reveal I have edited via IP in the past - so you're correct, I'm very experienced - my reasons for not making an account until now were personal.

Now onto the matter in hand: The Italo-Maltese relations article is about the political links of the nations. The Pro-Italian Maltese page, is specifically about a notable phenomenon in Malta, concerning the long history of desire to re-unite Italy and Malta. The two articles of course are linked, but are not the same. Consensus against you, PML has so far shown that. Geocourrier (talk) 18:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed the question in the talk page already, but you are obviously ignoring it. For what concerns your identity. The last anonymous edit to the page dates back to almost a month ago, and the only two IPs to have made more than a single modification to the page have not edited the page in over a year. A surprisingly convenient resurgence of interest on your side, or there is indeed more than just that? Also, I consider myself pretty much an experienced editor, but I have no I idea of what this SPI you keep talking about is supposed to be.--Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 18:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know what an SPI is? Wow, you sure are "experienced". Besides, you are arguing against consensus, not listening, not assuming good faith, and edit warring. For these reasons, I choose to deal with you through admins, until such a time arises when you learn how to behave here. Geocourrier (talk) 18:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy to create consensus with a terracotta army. Your request for page protection was denied; in the meantime I had the time to find out what this SPI was. I opened a request for investigation here.--Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 19:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my request for protection was denied, but at the same time, an admin reverted against you anyway - so the article is now safely back to normal. Stop POV pushing. It's unwanted here. Geocourrier (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did he? Or did he just revert himself after realizing the dispute was an edit war instead of simple content removal?

And, from the SPI:

This is an interesting request, filed directly after the requesting user was opposed by several users, including an admin - and seems more of a spite-filled request than anything. I maintain that I have absolutely no link with User:Right2. Geocourrier (talk) 20:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who exactly are these "several users"? Mind naming us two other ones excluding yourself?--Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 20:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course - User:Right2 and User:Gogo Dodo (an admin) are the most recent cases - looking back there appear to be some other IPs, and the talk page reveals more. Geocourrier (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You really want to go down that road? Gogo Dodo reverted you, then himself, probably for the reasons I wrote above. If you think any different you may ask him, that will give you an unequivocal answer. The only other reverts to contributions I made to that page are from an anonymous IP who removed the merge proposal template, and, among other things, changed the page about the Tamil Tigers from "Tamil Tigers is a militant terrorist organization" to "Tamil Tigers is NOT terrorist organization" and was immediately reverted. Now this leaves Right2, making it two users if you are right, or one, if I am right.--Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 21:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, no, the admin did not just revert himself. He reverted both pages to the times before you merged them, when the merge tags were on them. User your head, ey? Geocourrier (talk) 21:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Italy–Malta relations

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser request

Hello. Unfortunately, as per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Checkuser criteria and letters, CU requests to prove one's innocence are not accepted. Sorry. -- Avi (talk) 20:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a checkuser request, it is a suspected sockpuppet investigation request, and if the request has as little merit as you believe it does, it should be filed away pretty quickly :) -- Avi (talk) 20:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]