User talk:Pugno di dollari

This user talk page has been protected from editing to prevent this blocked user from using the {{unblock}} template to relay abusive messages to administrators or reposting it after having been denied an unblock by more than one admin. If you have come here to issue a new warning to this user, it means the block has expired. Please unprotect the page, ask an administrator to do so, or request unprotection here.

Welcome!

Hello, Pugno di dollari, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

...but

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Jkelly 21:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of works

Currently it is just the two of you reverting each other. We expect editors who disagree to work it out on the talk page. If you'd like, you can leave a message at Wikipedia:Third opinion to get an outside opinion, or leave a comment at Wikipedia talk:Manual of style which is probably watched by more people. Jkelly 21:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting issues

For filmographies, I like: "title(year) - role (notes)", since it is ordered from the most to the least useful field in a clear and concise format. I don't like having years first because they make it harder to search the filmography for a particular film and because the typical search pattern of someone scanning a screen is an F(down the left side, then line by line). In addition, when scanning a filmography, the years seem to blur together if the years-first format is used.

I can't help but disagree, because it is possible to still scan in an F-pattern while ignoring the years. With years first, everything is lined up in easy to ready columns instead of having the years in paranthesis which clutters up the space between the film title and the role and notes. Quiddity also seems to agree. Pugno di dollari TALK 11:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for your 'infobox film' query, the flag should only be on the 'release date' field. (see Template_talk:Infobox_Film/Syntax_Guide). --PhantomS 23:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

Original block was illegitimate. I have made no vandalizing edits, and I continue only to improve Wikipedia. This entire thing is absurd. Prove I have vandalized and that I have failed to reform before blocking me. Furthermore, Netscott is wasting a lot of his own time as well as admins' time revering edits when he could be improving wikipedia. What purpose is achieved through worsening grammar and formatting, other than his own obsessive-compulsive need to revert any edit by a person he doesn't like? Absolutely no purpose, except by the technical, and flawed, definition that any edits made under a sockpuppet are defined as "abuse", which is a well-known ridiculous rule.

Decline reason:

We don't care about the original block. This is irrelevant. Here, you are contesting this block and freely admit that this is a sockpuppet of an account currently blocked, making it by definition abusive. Each time you set up a new account and edit, you are proving your original block is legitimate and should not be lifted. -- Yamla 15:19, 25 January 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

By refusing to acknowledge the original block, you evade the argument. By setting up new accounts, I prove that the original block was illegitimate is contest to it. You have failed to debate the point, but rather you keep spouting the same rhetoric, that sockpuppets are, by definition, abuse. Rather than interpret the rules and find the meaning behind them, you follow the word of the rule, but not the spirit of the rule. The original 48-hour block was legitimate, however, repeatedly blocking sockpuppets even though I have clearly reformed does nothing to solve thr problem, you are hiding behind technicalities and trying to use them as proof. You do not offer any opportunity for me to reform. Furthermore, you are friends of the admins who have blocked me, and I request that an impartial judge with no experience or bias in the situation review my block. The fact remains: I was blocked 4 months ago, and have since, reformed, but you refuse to see this truth. Rather, you would prefer to make it impossible for me to reform, and keep dwelling on the past rather than looking to the future. Simply allow me to edit peacefully, in a constructive manner, instead of propogating a cycle that will never end and will waste 10 minutes of admins' time for every 1 minute I spend evading these ridiculous blocks. An admin even said, "just go away from wikipedia for a while and come back under a new account." This, I have tried, but every time I try to do so, Netscott, obviously with no purpose or life of his own, has nothing better to do than comb through hundreds of edits made by users in search of sockpuppets, and get these sockpuppets banned not because they are dangerous or a threat to wikipedia, but simply because he gets a sad little pleasure out of watching people get blocked, and blocks them only on the grounds that they are, technically, a sockpuppet, and not becuase they deserve the block. If Netscott combs through thousands of edits, of course he is going to find me as a sockpuppet. Let me come back in peace with Netscott actively searching for my edits.

Decline reason:

You are not permitted to edit the Wikipedia. Until your parent account is unblocked, you are not permitted to set up a new account. Please dispute the original block only on that user page or through unblock-en-l. We are not dwelling on the past, every time you set up a new account you are violating Wikipedia's policies and showing you have not reformed. That is, your current actions are abusive and will not be tolerated. -- Yamla 18:00, 25 January 2007 (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.