User talk:Grabyton

Grabyton, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Grabyton! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like 78.26 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

19:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Your recent edits

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. --SineBot (talk) 14:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

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. --SineBot (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Your recent edits to several articles (e.g., here and here) were unconstructive (removal of well-sourced material) and have been reverted. Your edit here was also reverted because it shows a misunderstanding of IPA. I recommend reviewing the advice at WP:DE and WP:POINT. Constructive edits are welcome. Doremo (talk) 16:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are right about Dolič. I will learn IPA and than correct incorrect pronunciation. For other issues please use talk page for every article. See Help:Using talk pages.--Grabyton (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 2016

Hello, I'm BU Rob13. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Kucja Valley with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ~ Rob^Talk 17:33, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Kucja Valley. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Doremo (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No need for threats. My edits are not unconstructive. They are reasonable and necessary. Mistakes can be correct by users (Policy of Wikipedia). I am sure we can talk about our disagreements on separate article talk page in a civilized way. Thank you. --Grabyton (talk) 10:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Grabyton. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

As I noticed, I have been blocked because of one person (user Drevoveren) who is occasionally logged in on my computer. User ViktorPošpoš is not known to me. I have presented the discussion about mass graves to Drevoveren one year ago and he wanted to be involved. What he did or said is not my business. We tried to give our opinion about mass graves content and other users had the same opinion as we did. If you read the discussion you can see the content was reverted again by one user, even though other users do not agree with that (NOT ONLY I and DREVOVEREN). What we did is not creating an illusion of support.Grabyton (talk) 19:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

So it's entirely a coincidence that the other person(s) using your computer do so exclusively to agree with you in various discussions? See WP:MEAT. Huon (talk) 20:03, 17 February 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

Please carefully read discussions before you make a decision. There are no various discussions, it is only one (mass graves content), written on three pages (that is my fold). Discussion started on page Talk:Brezovica pri Borovnici in 2016, than I moved it on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Slovenia - section: Opinion about extensive mass grave content for every village in Slovenia and continued on section Help with deleting mass grave content in 2017 after user Doremo reverted all content which was deleted in early 2016. User Drevoveren is participating only on this discussion, written on three pages, representing the same opinion as I and all the others. My work on Wikipedia is not harmful, I wrote several articles. Blocking me, will make you lose an author. If you see only a menace in me and you do not appreciate my work than fine, I will not lose an energy with Wikipedia. But people reading articles about Slovenian places, described only with the history of the brutal slaughter, will surely notice the political frustration which was able to prevail on Wikipedia, making this site unrespected.Grabyton (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There's nothing in this unblock request which shows you understand how inappropriate your actions have been. Your actions show clear violations of WP:SOCK and given your comments, it's clear you don't see the problem here (for example, "My work on Wikipedia is not harmful"). And then your claim that Wikipedia will become unrespected if we leave you blocked. No, clearly the block is appropriate. Yamla (talk) 13:54, 18 February 2017 (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.

Drevoveren has participated in that discussion twice, once in March 2016 and once in February 2017. You have been inactive between March 2016 and February 2017. Coincidence? I think not. Drevoveren's sole interest, excepting a single edit in 2014, has been turning up at exactly the same places you were active. From the same computer as you. With exactly the same opinion as you. Huon (talk) 22:27, 17 February 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have explained I did not use multiple accounts! Me and my friend have used the same computer. Together we collected material about some articles and with help we wrote few of them. That`s why it looks as we have the same interest. You did not present any sufficient evidence that I am the only person with multiple accounts. Tell me, why would I wrote one article with one profile and than use another profile to add content to the same article? Where is logic?Grabyton (talk) 19:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

That would make it meatpuppetry instead of sockpuppetry, which is still blockable. I suggest you to take the standard offer. Max Semenik (talk) 21:35, 26 February 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

I learned my lesson and realised what I have done. I wont be doing anything like that anymore. I would be very happy if you would unblock me. Thank you.Grabyton (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The Standard Offer which has been put on the table mandates that you stay off Wikipedia for six months before requesting an unblock. Each edit you make here resets that clock. The earliest date on which you can appeal this block is therefore now 22nd November 2017. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:12, 23 May 2017 (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.