User talk:Parabellus

It's obvious that you're not a new user

What is your main account, please? Bishonen | talk 08:35, 4 May 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Stop editing abusively or you will be blocked. I've removed your attack on Talk:Boatmen of Thessaloniki yet again. Do not re-add it or you will, in fact, be blocked. Bishonen | talk 08:44, 4 May 2019 (UTC).[reply]

You ought to concern yourself with the behaviour of the people you're defending. The user in question is editing the same articles as me to make it apparent that he is watching my contributions because I called out his biased editing. Parabellus (talk) 09:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, what stipulation allows him to harrass me to discole my location? Parabellus (talk) 09:10, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks

You have removed some standard warnings by an opponent from this page with the summary "remove psychotic edits". The removal is acceptable, the edit summary is completely not. You have already been referred to our civility policy, and this time I have blocked you for 31 hours for personal attacks. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. As for Jingiby's questions about your location: he shouldn't have asked that, as it's unnecessarily personal. But it's hardly a big deal since he merely asked — I don't know exactly for what purpose — and did not disclose, assuming that was what you meant. Bishonen | talk 10:35, 21 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Did you enquire into his stalkerish editing? Parabellus (talk) 10:47, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For reference: 20 May, [1], 21 May [2], 21 July [3], [4]

In every history entry, and on every userpage, there's a link to the user's contributions. There's nothing wrong with clicking on those contributions and, if one suspects the user of problematic editing, following them to the article they edited. Admins do it all the time. That's not what "stalking" means: see WP:HOUND for what it does mean. Notice the distinctions made. I can't see that Jingiby's edits that you link to are calculated to "create irritation, annoyance, or distress" to you. If you think they are, please explain, and provide context. Bishonen | talk 14:31, 21 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Whatever, man. Parabellus (talk) 18:47, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please check provided sources before move warring

I provided sources in my edit summary you didn't read, and could have provided more if I had the space. If you wish to challenge the title take to WP:RM Ribbet32 (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only source you provided which uses the adjective says only "Macedonian", read it again. There is also a policy regarding this matter which you should also read at WP:MOSMAC#Adjectival form of North Macedonia. You are obviously not informed regarding the nuances of this matter and your sources do not even justify the move so you should probably avoid from making further edits to the article. Parabellus (talk) 00:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020

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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

I would like to please request an unblock on grounds of clemency per Wikipedia's policy. I am sincerely regretful of using a sock-puppet to circumvent what I thought was abusive behavior. However my contributions on my account have proved to be of some value as they were reinstated by an administrator. I would like to improve Wikipedia and plan to translate some article from the Russian and Czech Wikipedias without resorting to further sockpuppetry. Best Regards.

Decline reason:

I suggest your most probable route to an unblock is to take the standard offer and don't edit for 6 months then request an unblock. PhilKnight (talk) 16:42, 31 May 2020 (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.

Unblock request 2

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).

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

Request reason:

I am requesting an unblock citing the same reason I used in my previous request with the addition of having accepted the standard offer at the advice of the reviewing administrator and abstaining from editing for 6 months. If you allow me to continue editing, my contributions will show to be for the betterment of articles and expanding Wikipedia. Regards.

Decline reason:

The trolling below is not very conducive to building trust. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:30, 15 November 2020 (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.

Hi Parabellus, please post here a list of every account you have used to edit Wikipedia. Additionally, please give us a sense for how many edits you made while logged out. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

212.5.158.27
212.5.158.17
212.5.158.43
88.203.200.74
213.130.72.22
46.16.193.70
78.159.147.70
149.62.200.238
149.62.201.9
212.117.45.70
212.5.158.67

And many more. The master is User:Jingiby. The edits are innumerable as it is a full time job. Parabellus (talk) 11:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this unblock request made through a proxy? -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:28, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You think I'm going to sit around and wait until I have to jump through your hoops again? I can create a new account at whim. This is just to expose that you clowns won't do a damn thing about paid trolls. Parabellus (talk) 05:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]