User talk:Heritoctavus

March 2014

Herit is back !

Hello, Kirin13 and C.Fred I'm not sure you are somewhat related or not. Anyway, there is a good news. I'm unblocked and I'll be back on the 'rink'.

But, there is also a bad news.

I ... AM ... BACK !!!

Hello, I'm C.Fred. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. If you're going to claim the results are disputed, you need to show sources that the ISU has cancelled or is otherwise formally reviewing the results, or that the IOC is doing the same with the medals. —C.Fred (talk) 19:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles with this edit, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. (t) Josve05a (c) 19:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. —C.Fred (talk) 20:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop reverting my edits on Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles and Figure skating at the 2010 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles. I have clearly stated why I've made these edits. You've been reverting without making comment and ignoring my attempts at discussing the issues. Kirin13 (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. 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 adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. —C.Fred (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint on Defamation

Hey C.Fred, What the hell is 137.122.64.58 ? Why did you send an email about 137.122.64.58 to me?

Who and what are you and what is the reason to send an email like this to my email account, out of the blue, on this peaceful weekend? I'm aware that I've been blocked since yesterday. Are you saying that somebody from that IP breached my account and did something? I have some followers and friends who know what I'm doing with the concurrent issues. But, if you are an wikipedia employee, DO NOT THREATEN everybody who has similar opinions, this way.

[ This is defamation. I want your apology for this threat. ]

Remove citation on me [heritoctavus] from that page, immediately

I'll be back when the block is elapsed. While I'm at it you keep blocking somebody from 137.122.64.58 who's breaching my account; enforce them to login; that's your job — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heritoctavus (talk • contribs) 16:48, 22 March 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Here's the timeline of what happened:

At 20:33 UTC yesterday, you were blocked for violation of the three-revert rule on the article Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles.
Subsequent to that, a number of IP addresses edited the article in a manner consistent with your edits.
At 01:23 UTC today, 137.122.64.58 (talk · contribs · 137.122.64.58 WHOIS) violated the three-revert rule on that article and was blocked.
- The primary reason for the block was for violation of 3RR.
- The secondary issue was the similarity of that user's edits to yours, which suggested abuse of multiple accounts. That's why I told the IP that one reason for the block was "The similarity of your edits to those of Heritoctavus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was blocked earlier for edit warring at the same article."
Because I linked to your user page in that edit, you received a notification of the edit.
I stand by the assertion that there was similarity in the edits.
I stand by the assessment I made then that the similarity was not sufficient to warrant a message directly to you: I did not leave a warning here, tag you as a suspected sockpuppeteer, or extend your block.
There is no requirement that a user log in to edit. Editing while logged out is generally allowed, unless it is done abusively, as when a blocked user edits while logged out in an attempt to circumvent the block. Thus, the only actions I could take to "enforce them to login" would be to conclude the IP was you, block the IP, and extend your block for block evasion. Let me make clear that while I noted similarity between their editing and yours, I did not reach the conclusion that you used the IP abusively. I did note my observations.

At this time, I still stand by my assessment that no additional action is needed, either to take additional sanctions or to retract any part of the messages I have left. —C.Fred (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey C.Fred,

TAKE THIS SERIOUSLY.
PROVE THAT THE ALLEGED SIMILARITY WHICH SEEMS TO EXIST ONLY IN YOUR IMAGINATION ACTUALLY EXISTS IN REALITY OR JUST APOLOGIZE FOR DEFAMATION !!

SEE BELOW, C.Fred

May God save hopeless

Hi, C.Fred,

Why are you so obsessed with "the similarity" that does not exist to spend your time writing an email to me on this tranquil weekend all of a sudden ? You don't enjoy your holiday?

.... LOL( laughing out loud .... )

If you just say sorry, then it can be just over. simple....

If you want to prove "the similarity", just do it like - WHICH SENTENCE written by 137.122.64.58 is the same as what I had previously written. Then, I will sue that person for plagiarism.

.... LOLOM ( laughing out loud ....once more .... )

Come on... be neutral. Do not insist on your subjectivity.

It seems like that "the SIMILARITY" exists only in the imagination inside your brain. Just go outside and meet people and talk and enjoy. I sincerely, honestly hope that you live in a big city where, for example, for example only, there is a psychiatrist.

...I clearly said "for example"... (..LS...)

Why are you so fearful of seeing the truth ? Well, you remind me of Kirin13 in that respect, while I strongly want to believe that you are not any related to that person.

Edits on 2014 Ladies' singles page

Related to your edits on Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles. The reason I undid them is: 1) For article continuity, you need to retain the information in the "Official responses" even if something is listed on top. 2) There is no citation for KOC actually having filed the complaint. Both ref listed only say that KOC intends to file. Thus, there is no indication that IOC has received any complaint. 3) Top of article is summary. The summary already says KOC intends to file a complaint. If readers want to know more than, they know to jump to that section using the table of contents or just scrolling down. There is no need to tell users to go to section 4. Before undoing my edit, please discuss here. Thanks, Kirin13 (talk) 05:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing on Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles. Please see above comment for reasons your edit was reverted. Kirin13 (talk) 06:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Figure Skating article

Please stop your disruptive editing on Figure skating at the 2010 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles. Repeatedly making the same edit and refusing to engage in discussion on the talk pages is an example of disruptive editing. Reasons for inclusion of Asada's records is discussed on the talk page. Kirin13 (talk) 06:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,Kirin13 I posted my opinion on that talk page. See that and think why you are absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heritoctavus (talk • contribs) 09:25, 23 March 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Hi Heritoctavus, I have replied. Please continue the discussion on the talk page. And please keep civil. Insulting me doesn't make me think that you are right. Kirin13 (talk) 10:08, 23 March 2014 (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) 09:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A thread has been started at the administrators' noticeboard about your conduct

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding your edits and the legal threat you made at my talk page.(diff). The thread is User:Heritoctavus, tendentious editing, and now a legal threat. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 13:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.

Basalisk

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Review this issue with a third person than C.Fred or Basalisk I need to be unblocked for the following reason : 1. I will RETRACT my comments with legal things. I clearly state that I did/do/will not have intention to take any legal action towards C.Fred or Wikipedia.org about this incident. 2. I only mentioned the "possibility" of legal action that anybody can say when they are groundlessly defamed. C.Fred did not give an objective, verifiable, technical evidence that the person 137.122.64.58 is myself. What I wanted was an 'apology' and removal of reference of me in 137.122.64.58. 3. Also note that, in WP:LEGAL page, it states that "....problem such as defamation or copyright infringement is not a threat ..." And I was requesting apology for groundless defamation ( or libel ) to C.Fred, which, in no ways, violated WP:LEGAL. 4. But I will keep making "A report of a problem such as defamation or libel" and request an apology to C.Fred ; this is NOT A LEGAL ACTION NOR A LEGAL THREAT. 5. As I state above, I do not have an intention to take legal action about this incident. To retract my comments that may be wrongfully thought of as "true intention of legal action", I need to be unblocked.

Accept reason:

I'm unblocking you, on the condition that you do not use legal language such as "libel", "defamation", "suit" etc. etc. You don't need to use that language to discuss improvements. You also do not need to keep haranguing C Fred for an apology. You're not going to get one; he's made it clear he doesn't want you to bother him about it anymore and continuing to argue about it is harassment. If you continue it you will be blocked again. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you letter :

Basalisk , C.Fred

In reponse to this, I will resume the contribution to your business on the condition that you Basilisk and CFred do not start buzzing and haganguing! ever again with some funny things including, but not limited to the wrongful referencing of me in 137.122.64.58, which has been bugging me a LITTLE.

I don't want you to bugging me anymore. If you do this, this also constitutes harassment. As you did not provide any evidence, I will remove(if you do not), if possible, any of your knee-slapping act of referencing me in any page.

Was fun, though during the last weekend. I think this mischief of yours as part of your entertainment service. I appreciate your business.

Thank you, great, have fun with yourselves next time, not with me. (as it will constitute harassment)

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at User talk:C.Fred. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you wish to remove your own comments, ~~strike them through~~. NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at User talk:137.122.64.58, you may be blocked from editing. Again, do not remove other editors' comments, even if you think they are wrong. NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, just stop removing comments of other editors and focus on articles. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very seriously, NeilN, that is relevant to me , and I left the reason, it's not related to you but to C.Fred and I don't want to disrupt this buddy ; do not intervene ; stop buzzing and bugging me with tiny little things that is even not related to you ; just stay focused on your own job and business.

Reference Errors on 24 March

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

Heritoctavus, I repeat, be civil.

Examples of when Heritoctavus made uncivil and false comments to me (Kirin13):

On Talk:Figure skating at the 2010 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles#Mao Asada & triple axels
- "Do not list up every clumsy statistics. You seem obsessed with some weird statistics other than this." WP:3O agreed that my statistics were not 'clumsy' nor 'weird'.
- "I WILL REPORT THIS VANDALISM TO THE ADMINISTRATOR." - there was no vandalism
- "You remove it , you are vandalist." - there was no vandalism
On Talk:Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles
- "You created another section and arbitrarily moved my sentence against my warning, which constitutes vandalism." - if you read summaries, all edits were justified.
- "You will never succeed." regarding allowing me to make edits
- "I am busy recovering the article you are destroying." on reason for not signing talk page comments
- "Do you understand English."
- accusing me of "sectional blanking" & "vandalism" @16:47, 25 March 2014 - there was none
- accusing me of "disruptive editing", "sectional blanking" & "vandalism" @04:34, 26 March 2014 - all false
On User talk:Heritoctavus#2010 Figure Skating article
- replying "you are absurd."

Examples of when Heritoctavus made uncivil comments towards others:

Heritoctavus entire threatening legal action against C.Fred thread, on User talk:Heritoctavus and User talk:C.Fred
calling C.Fred busybuddy on Talk:Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles
Heritoctavus interactions with NeilN and Basalisk

In general, the tone you use whenever you interact with anyone. (Have you gotten along with a single editor here on Wikipedia?) You have been condescending and demanding. You hold the opinion that you are right and everyone else is biased. You accuse others of vandalism when they haven't. You continually refuse to sign your comments properly (using four tildes). You continually don't write edit summaries to your edits. In general, your making it difficult for anyone to work with you. Kirin13 (talk) 07:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Basalisk, As per what Kirin13 said above :

Kirin13, please read this.

I didn't refuse to sign but forgot it or I did it with three tilds. For recent few days, I always left edit summaries. As I explained, all things caused by UNFAMILIARITY with wikipedia system. And you mentioned it here again in the context of civility.

All my warnings of vandalism had a reason. Search the talk page. You did not respond to my questions and explanations properly in the talk page. (Not edit summary, but the talk page)

You mentioned the incident with C.Fred and Basilisk that was solved three days before, on which I took proper actions. These are not relevant to you. Yet, you described it here in my page again in the context of civility.

You said "difficult for anyone to work with you". Who is 'anyone'? You are the 'anyone'? This is the personal attack. WP:PERSONAL

On top of that (truth or not), doing these in my page constitutes the personal attack WP:PERSONAL as well as incivility WP:CIVIL.

Heritoctavus (talk) 05:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're awfully forgetful, even though you've been reminded multiple times. I just checked your contrib log - majority of your edits had no edit summary.

False. As I explained to you multiple times, it's not vandalism. Any admin will be able to see that

No you didn't. Immediately after being unblocked you started with "Basilisk and CFred do not start buzzing and haganguing" and continued with insulting C.Fred on other pages. It doesn't matter if it's toward me or another user - WP:CIV still applies.

Name one user you have worked well with. I can name multiple you haven't: Kirin13, C.Fred, NeilN

No it doesn't. If you had actually read WP:CIV you would know that this is the appropriate action.

Kirin13 (talk) 06:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To Kirin13, ( CC only :Basalisk )

You said 'awfully forgetful' to me when we're talking about civility? Is this what you mean by the word civility?

'haganguing' is the word one of them first used to me (I do not mention who!) And this incident is NOT related to you. DO NOT MENTION OTHERS OR INCIDENTS WITH OTHERS. This may constitute WP:PERSONAL

Even two or three words are enough as comments I'll do it. I emphasize the words again 'UNFAMILIARITY WITH WIKIPEDIA WRITING SYSTEM'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Do_not_insult_the_vandals

For vandalism, did you explain it in talk page? This is still arguable.

When you said 'Name one user you have worked well with' you implied the violation of WP:ETIQ (Argue facts, not personalities section) as well as personal attack WP:PERSONAL, violation of WP:CIV ((e) quoting another editor out of context).

Please remind that this section is about civility, the section you created, Kirin13

Heritoctavus (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kirin13,

( CC :NeilN, Basalisk )

Look at this : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Figure_skating_at_the_2014_Winter_Olympics&diff=600557983&oldid=600556909

This is your first comment on "vandalism" when you removed my edit. I did not even know Wikipedia's "vandalism" policy before. From that moment, I started to say "vandalism" when you removed my edit without any reasoning in talk page. You wanted the discussion about the ladies event (not this) in talk page (not edit remark), but you did not give any reasoning there. That's why I reverted your removals. What was wrong with my sentence? You said my sentence is absurd, but you think yours is not to me?

Separately, go back history, and you see my point was "mentioning ethnicity can be biased or can lead to any type of prejudice, no matter what the original intention is". NO RACIAL COMMENT! I said similar things many times.

Isn't there any wikipedia rule about racial comments?

There's no prohibition against mentioning ethnicity in an encyclopedic manner (i.e., the first Chinese, the all-Portuguese). I can't imagine why you think there would be. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:17, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was already explained to you in this here. You were adding absurd statistics by your own admission. That is the only time I used the word "vandalism" toward you. However, you've used "vandalism"/"vandalist" toward editors who you disagreed with numerous times. I've referred you to WP:VAN multiple times to explain to you that this is not "vandalism", yet you continue in use these words. Kirin13 (talk) 14:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kirin13,

You gave the link here. Exactly. This was not the only time you mentioned vandalism. Again -> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Figure_skating_at_the_2014_Winter_Olympics&diff=600557983&oldid=600556909

I want you to explain things in a manner NeilN did above. (though, I disagree)

Look at this.

1. Original : Men's singles was the first time all medalists in an Olympic figure skating event were all of Asian decent.

2. My addition : This is the all time first in figure skating event where one gold and one silver medal were taken by two different Asian countries.

If 2 is absurd and why 1 is not? If 1 is not absurd 2 should not be, either. That was the key point. And other many more statistics possible in terms of ethnicity.

Apart from this, you said 'absurd statistics' toward my edit here again in the context of civility. See the title of this section.

DO NOT MENTION MY INCIDENTS WITH OTHERS. (WP:PERSONAL, WP:CIV)

Heritoctavus (talk) 17:02, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Civility largely means commenting content, not contributors. Thus, "absurd statistics" is acceptable, "you are absurd" is not. And, as we are discussing your behavior, bringing up your incidents with others is also okay. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:14, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NeilN, Saying somebody's work is absurd is as bad as saying the writer is absurd. My first word 'absurd'(obsurd) was not indicating Kirin13 or her work. But, Kirin13's first word 'absurd' was pointing at me. See the history ; BTW, How long are we gonna do this word game?

Heritoctavus (talk) 03:20, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

blah~blah~blah~blah~blah~blah~blah~blah~blah~blah~blah~

... um, this is talking about this ... that's one time. As far as 'absurd statistics', that was your words (to be exact, your words were "Obsurd statistics continues"). Kirin13 (talk) 17:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway you said 'vandalism' to me twice.Heritoctavus (talk) 03:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Kirin13,

....um... Look at this picture

http://raymondkwan.com/wp-content/uploads/D7L_2291-1024x528.jpg

Are you Korean?

... um... Why do you have ...um... so much to say? I reserved enough space for you to write excuses as much as you want below.

|

| - - - - -- THIS PAGE IS RESERVED FOR Kirin13

|

| - - - - -- THIS PAGE IS RESERVED FOR Kirin13

|

Heritoctavus (talk) 02:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To NeilN,(CC : Kirin13)

You got a point with the example (the first Chinese, the all-Portuguese) These are nationalities. In an encyclopedic manner, nationality is a clear cut. But, the ethnicity is a lot arguable if you think 2/3 of world population is Asian : from Arabians, Indians to Vietnamese and Mongolians. (I hope you don't think Vietnamese and Mongolians are any similar) And even mixture of races. There are too many things to discuss about racial matters. That may lead to an ethnically divisional point of view of the world. That is why I think comment on ethnicity should be avoided, but the nationality. We don't say like all three are ethnically caucasian. Right? Heritoctavus (talk) 17:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:34, 26 March 2014 (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) 19:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Heritoctavus reported by User:NeilN (Result: ). Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for for disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 20:32, 26 March 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

OK. Listen. What I wanted to do was to reverting to the original sentences because the consensus was not met. That is why we use talk page, isn't it? I followed the usage of talk page. Second, if my comment on NYT is leading to disruptive editing, I will remove it. Just tell me what another part of my editing constitutes disruptive editing, I will remove it.

Decline reason:

It appears that at least 3 other editors disagreed with changes you repeatedly made to Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) over the course of a single day. On top of that, we don't call people names or demean them like this. Fundamentally, in order to be unblocked at this point, you must demonstrate not only your knowledge of our policies and guidelines, but an itemized understanding of the ones you've wantonly disregarded in the mere span of a week, how you did so, and how you plan to avoid doing so in the future. --slakr^\ talk / 21:33, 26 March 2014 (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.

Please see WP:TE and WP:DE Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 20:39, 26 March 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hey, Slakr, (or other administrator), The block is no longer necessary because : 1. Two editors disagreed with me. This situation is possible if wikipedia wants to be neutral instead of something decided by voting. So, I used talk page, listed all the issues, and tried to come to an agreement. I always requested objective, verifiable reasons of repetitive removal of my edit. Any rule, law, newspaper or reference etc, instead of his/her/their subjective opinion. In this way, I believe, we can be neutral. And I recovered my edit when it had been removed without this. I am always willing to discuss on a fair ground - objectivity. 2. No violation of WP:NPA. I did not mean to demean them that way as you indicated. In USA, you can even say 'Hey, guy' to a person 20 years older than you, which is totally unimaginable in some other cultures. Even your id is slakr. You don't use it in real life, I hope. This is only possible because we're in the net. And there is a wider choice of expression just like your id. 3. About the block reason this time (disruptive editing), I clearly stated that "I will remove it." in the unblock request. And added "Just tell me what another part of my editing constitutes disruptive editing, I will remove it." Got it? 4. I reject your choice of the word "wantonly", which might be insulting. This word can be used in expressions like "a wanton woman"; a highly improper choice. I do not respond to the sentence that includes this word. Period.

Decline reason:

If you cannot see how referring to another editor by name as a "busybuddy", or another as "twinkle twinkle little star" (which, by the way, has homophobic connotations and this borders on hate speech) are violations of WP:NPA, then there's really little hope for you even understanding how the rest of your behaviours are inappropriate. Your entire editing history here is 180 degrees contrary to the policies you agreed to; period. D P 09:59, 27 March 2014 (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.

Heritoctavus (talk) 06:31, 27 March 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

1. D P included homophobic connotations as one of the reason of declination. But, this is misinterpretation of the word 'homophobic' in WP:NPA. Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobic. My comments did not have anything related to homophobic. * 2. The reason of current blocking is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Heritoctavus_reported_by_User:NeilN_.28Result:_.29 as reported by NeilN. In response to this, I clearly stated that "I will remove it." And added "Just tell me what another part of my editing constitutes disruptive editing, I will remove it." So, first, the current blocking has to be released. * 3. If you think my editing history here is 180 degrees contrary to the policies, you have to upload the problems about this in the noticeboard to clarify them, on which I can take appropriate actions item by item. Moreover, this is another matter from the current blocking.

Decline reason:

All I'm seeing in both this unblock appeal and subsequent comments is a determination to argue and and debate about the rules, not follow them. It borders on straight-up trolling, and if it continues I'll be more than happy to take away your talkpage access as well. In order to be unblocked, you need to show, succinctly and coherently, that you understand why you were blocked, that you understand why that behaviour is not tolerated here, and that you will not repeat your actions. Anything beyond that is at best extraneous, at worst a sign that you're here purely to get into fights - and that's precisely the sort of editing we neither want nor need here. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:50, 31 March 2014 (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.

Do you understand how your various edits went against these policies/guidelines?

It's not a question of removing past edits. It's a question of changing your behavior. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for any of your response. But, be objective. How can anyone objectively see changing of behavior in wikipedia? You are not a school teacher. What I can do and show here in wikipedia is to correct or remove and avoid any rule-violating contents of mine.

Edit warring : got it 70%
WP:CIVIL : read it two or three times but got it only 30%
WP:NOTVAND : confused with the concept of vandalism / edit warring. Is it a violation or not?
WP:NOTBATTLE: for the first time. But basically everybody already knows it conceptually. And continuous removing of my sentences can also be a battle. The things is I'm not sure how to properly respond to such an attack, other than using talk page and reverting it.
WP:TPO : This is strange. Why not my own page? But, now I see this is a rule.

Additionally, as per the comment by the dangerous panda D P, is objectivity 180 degree opposite to wikipedia policy? If it is so, I will also agree and RETRACT my insistence on it.

(*the dangerous panda is his/her name, not insulting!)

Edit warring: You need to get this a 100% as you've already explicitly been blocked once for it and it contributed to a second block.
WP:CIVIL: No childish nicknames. Comment on content, not the editor. And stop ordering people not to touch your edits.
WP:NOTVAND: Do not label edits you do not agree with as "vandalism" and do not give out vandalism warnings ("only" or otherwise) for good faith edits.
WP:NOTBATTLE: This is a perfect example. Wikipedia is not a tit for tat game. Each edit is judged on its own merits. Do not make edits out of "revenge".
WP:TPO: You are free to remove comments off your own talk page (but removing your comments from other talk pages is generally frowned upon). Do not change other people's comments (even if you think they are wrong) unless you are doing something listed in WP:TPO.

We can see if your behavior has changed if you understand and agree to these points and refrain from editing the way you've done in the past. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NeilN,

Now, you seem somebody to discuss something with in detail. At this moment, unblocking is my secondary concern. Let's talk.

1. I do not see why the polls aren't reliable. The disagreement about this caused this blocking. YouGov is a well-known, well established company specialized in online polls. I do not see why the polls from it is not appropriate as a secondary source.

2. See this : You reverted my 6 edits at once using the twinkle. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Figure_skating_at_the_2010_Winter_Olympics_%E2%80%93_Ladies%27_singles&diff=601107029&oldid=601102739

About this, you said "...no Wikipedia-based guideline that mandates this.", in talk page. Then, for the same reason : [Nothing mandates this] also means [no need to revert], too. Your revert was based on an arbitrary, subjective decision; and you reverted other irrelevant edits in this 6-edit-revert.

3. WP:NOTVAND I do not see which of my warning of vandalism falls into the wrong warning of 'not vandalism'. Sectional blanking does not belong to 'Boldly editing' or any other WP:NOTVAND. So my warning is justified.

4. WP:NOTBATTLE By this, if you mean my comment, I already made my intention clear. And you also clearly explained other rules, and it seems enough.

5. WP:IGNORE : Rules are for fools. I found this and it's exactly what I have had/will have in mind. If I break a rule, that is because of ignorance or of mistake OR of too much complex, perplexing descriptions of rules that no new coming voluntary participant could read thoroughly. My philosophy is I go as far as I can go with my writing unless it's banned otherwise.

Heritoctavus (talk) 17:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the above answers, I do not think you will collobarate well with Wikipedia's community of editors. I tried, but I'm done here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:11, 28 March 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

Why is this account still blocked? I do not understand what you mean by collaboration with editors. What I am supposed to do is to follow Wikipedia's guidelines. I do not need to "collaborate" with any group of editors in writing the contents as long as I follow the rules. What specifically do you want more? CLARIFY, SPECIFY what you want to unblock this account.

Decline reason:

One of the policies on Wikipedia is WP:Consensus. How can you work to achieve consensus unless you collaborate with other editors? You cannot edit articles in a vacuum; unless you just walk away whenever any edit you make is objected to, you will need to interact with the other editors, discuss the situation, and arrive at a consensus. Your unblock request suggests that you have not demonstrated a willingness or ability to cooperate with other editors. —C.Fred (talk) 23:04, 17 April 2014 (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.