User talk:Tar-Elenion

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tar-Elenion.

Welcome!

Hello, Tar-Elenion, 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! --Vox Rationis 23:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

R.E - Croats image

Yes I do like the image you have created, but I do feel that Tomislav should be added to it, to represent the past, and Eric Bana should be tehre to represent the diaspora outside of Europe. —King Ivan 07:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well Jelačić is IMO there to represent the past as are all other persons in that image. The main problem as I see it with the painting of King Tomislav is that it is a fictional painting. As for Eric Bana and diaspora I don't think we need someone to represent diaspora. And besides you could say Ivan Meštrović represents it just fine since he immigrated, lived and died in United States. Tar-Elenion 07:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I think most Croats would think that their first king would deserve a place in the main image. As for Eric Bana, I really do think he belongs their to represent the modern diaspora - especially since he is an Australian Croat, and Croats are a significant group in Australia. Anyway, I have added Tomislav and Bana to the image you created, and I'm in the process of uploading it now. —King Ivan 07:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's fine. :)

I just hope you used the image (King Tomislav) of better quality I posted at Talk:Croats. Tar-Elenion 07:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I used the better quality image of him. I'm glad this image issue is cleared up. Thanks for your input and help. —King Ivan 07:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits

I mostly agree with your edits, I just did some small correction. I agree that old Raguseans were Italian AND Croat, and not Italian AND Croat. We can continue in this way. Greetings. About the Ragusan names, it can be ok to list them according to the articles, but they are not always correct. I'd prefer a more neutral criteria. It shold be important in the article to point old Raguseans were a meeting point between two civilation. In the present time, people perefere to demonstrat that they were Italian or Croat (or Serbs). Greetings--Giovanni Giove 18:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Sorry with my gramatic mistake, i´m a spanish spoken! Ragusino

Central South Slavic diasystem

This term is in use now, the term "Serbo-Croatian" is abandoned in scientifical literature in 1990's, because of its negative political and cultural conotations.
Source:"Hrvatski leksikon", 1995. I'll post you the details of the book later. Kubura 14:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Tar.
Let's go to the point.
Tar, read the articles on en.wiki regarding former Yugoslavia and languages of peoples in former Yugoslavia.
The official languages of SR Serbia, SR Montenegro and SR Bosnia and Herzegovina was called "Serbocroat language" (srpskohrvatski) or "Serb or Croat" language (srpski ili hrvatski).
In SR Croatia, official name was "Croat or Serb language" (hrvatski ili srpski jezik).
Factually, "Croat or Serb language" differed from todays Croat language mostly in purism/in imposed internacionalisms, "equalizing with Serb language" (derogatively among some academists called: "jednačenje po srpskosti") etc.. Regarding this, I'll post you some links later. I've read so many books and magazines (scientific), that I've forgot where have I read all those stuff.
Second, leave a remark about "Torlakian" as dialect. You'll make users from those parts of Serbia angry because of that. If you don't want to remove that, OK, as you wish, but than you're on your own to deal with them.
Regarding the diasystem and the term, if you're familiar with some Croatian linguistic names, Radoslav Katičić ("milder" author), proposed that term as mostly neutral. He also wrote in "Hrvatski leksikon 1 A-K", p.545, Naklada leksikon d.o.o., 1996, that: "...term Serbocroatian was heavily "burdened" with language policy that was being implemented; the same policy had aim to push out and "crumble" Croat standard language, so that Serb language can take over the place of Croat language among Croats".
There some other authors and works that deal with this topic, but this is the first thing that I had in my handreach. There are also authors, that deny that diasystem.
However, they all agree that term Serbo-Croatian is heavily compromised.
Greetings, Kubura 20:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can always make a redirect. Still, I'll try to inform you about the new details, post the links etc..
Regarding other diasystems, I won't do anything, I don't know any other "common" names.
It's important that I haven't made this name up.
I won't do anything on the article, I don't want to make edit wars.
But, it's still really hard to see the term "Serbo-Croatian" on the list. It's a reminder on the language-submission policy, and it's offending to Croats.
BTW, where does your interest for Croatian topics comes from? Kubura 08:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Tar.
Regarding the name of "Central S.Slavic", I think that it'd be much easier with users from former YU, than with scientists and students of Slavistics, "Serbocroatistics" from the outer world.
Those from former country 'll understand this, I can put my money on that. Still, there's a procedure for renaming of article (when there are opponents). And I have to prepare some text to add.
Regarding Serbocroatian language, we have to be careful. There was a language that was official under that name in some former YU socialist republics (Serbia, Montenegro, B&H). We shouldn't mix it with the official language in SR Croatia (described in upper text).
The one in Serbia was in fact, completely Serb language (ekavian base), the one in B&H had ijekavian base, and lexic nigh-on-to that in Serbia; Montenegro had some specialties (besides ijekavian base).
About other diasystems, I don't dare to do anything.
Sincerely, Kubura 08:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Tar.
I'd like to copy our discussion (from our talk pages) regarding diasystem on the talk page of diasystem article. That'll help in possible future edit wars between other "newcoming" users. I mean, that'll help in avoiding edit wars.
Do you agree? Kubura 15:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note

You cannot delete a source and the fact that it sources and ask for sources in the edit summary at the same time.

This is from the ol' Encyclopedia Britannica:

After Gyorgyich the Serbian literature of Ragusa and Dalmatia during the 18th century has no great name to show, except that of the mathematician, Ruggiero Boshkovich (see Boscovic). His two brothers and his sister Anitsa Boshkovich were known in their time as poets. But on the whole Serbian literature on the Adriatic coast showed little originality...

Also note that Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. To my personal opinion (according to modern-day interpretations), if you really have to attach ethnicity to non-national cosmopolitans like Rodger Joseph Boshkovich, that would be Croatian - but the immense importance (obviously) to the Serbian Astronomy and ever-repeating claims (mostly through the long past history and most recent) are enough to qualify for an entrance into his article on Wikipedia. Such is a thing amongst many of the disputed characters here [a compromise]. --PaxEquilibrium 15:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tar, don't remove those sources. Those sources compromise the users who cited them.
I'll post you the links and references that'll proove that theirs sources are compromised, outdated, unneutral, driven by stereotypes, based on false/falsified/wrong data etc...
Don't get into edit wars; edit wars compromise your reputaion on wiki. Rather ask people for help. Wiki-users 'll gladly help you.
"Serbian literature of Ragusa and Dalmatia in 18th century"? There was no Serbia in 18th century. Second thing is, there was more elephants in southern Croatia in those times than Serbs. Kubura 16:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning on Slavica Ecclestone

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Slavica Ecclestone. 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. -- tariqabjotu 16:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the 3RR and that I may have violated it. The problem with the article in question is that it is an issue of revert-war for quite some time. I have tried to step in and stop it pointed people to talk things through before they revert it but I have now, sadly, become part of it. I have requested it's full protection. Perhaps you could do something about? Again I apologize. Tar-Elenion 16:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you may or may not have noticed, I declined your request for protection. You are not doing anything to stop the edit war; on the contrary, you are continuing it. If it were not for your edits, there would not have been an edit war in the first place. If you really want to do something good for the article, take the initiative of starting a discussion on the article talk page. -- tariqabjotu 16:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

I took it directly from the Encyclopedia Britannica 1911. See it for yourself. That is not a quotation from Britannica Enc. 1911. Currently, this can be found online. That is the modern Britannica Enc. It is interesting that all of Britannica up to the most recent four editions (post-1990) considered him a Serb, but deleted it and then finally (at the modern) wrote "his father was a Croat".

And, yes; that is why Nikola Tesla is present on the List of Croats article; that is why him being proud of "Croatdom" is at his own article and that's why 50% of the time anons from Croatia put that he's Croat and months of edit wars and conflicts are fought at the talk page whether he could be considered a Serb at all. Also, remember what I wrote about verifiability and truth. --PaxEquilibrium 16:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So in other words you can not verify this. Let's go back at the Wikipedia verifiability policiy, shall we? Please remain calm & civil. I don't understand what you mean - I just did verify it. Talking about Wikipedia's policy, it is you who asked for sources and deleted them at the same time. So are you simply saying that all those sources are POV, just because they claim something which yo do not? Don't get offended, but that looks as if you don't like them just because you don't like what they claim. --PaxEquilibrium 16:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talking 'bout connections to Serbia, his father was connected to Serbia. :) But that's another subject. --PaxEquilibrium 16:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He was traveling Old Serbia (Kosovo, Sandzak, Montenegro, Herzegovina) and wrote works about Serbian Orthodox Monasteries of old (allegedly "researching his roots"; one of his last actions before conversion to Catholicism). --PaxEquilibrium 17:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... so? --PaxEquilibrium 17:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What? How on earth does that connect him to Serbia? --PaxEquilibrium 18:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You asked me what on earth connected a certain man by the name of Nikola Boskovic to Serbia. I replied. I don't understand why you talk like an Indian (Native American) Chief. :) --PaxEquilibrium 19:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slavica Ecclestone again

I would just like to point out to you that despite your warning[1] to Paulcicero he again reverted the page[2] continuing the revert-war. Tar-Elenion 17:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed and I blocked him for twenty-four hours. -- tariqabjotu 17:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

??

Why do you keep changing peoples ethnicity when you have no sources? Please stop reverting my edits and stop using sockpuppets to make me brake the 3RR rule. Paulcicero 16:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About Paulcicero

He has just accused me of have a sockpuppet?! -> [3] I wasn't even on Wikipedia at the time, I am not sure but isn't this kind of prohibited to accuse someone without any evidence? Also please note that he is also constantly revert-warring. Can you do something about all this? Tar-Elenion 20:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before I take care of the edit-warring situation with him, I would like to ask you whether you are truly sticking by your story. Are you truly standing by the position that 58.165.122.36 (talk · contribs) and 58.165.90.202 (talk · contribs) are not you? -- tariqabjotu 20:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for revert-warring with the assistance of 58.165.122.36 (talk · contribs) and 58.165.90.202 (talk · contribs) for a period of twenty-seven hours. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. -- tariqabjotu 21:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe you, and even if these IPs in the end are not you, you have caused enough disruption revert-warring to warrant this twenty-seven-hour break. I'll be filing a request for checkuser soon to confirm whether these are really you. -- tariqabjotu 21:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. I wasn't even here, also if you look at the special contributions by the supposed IP's they don't even coincide with my contributions recently so no there is no chance in hell that I was revert-warring. Furthermore it was me who reported this all to you and you block me?! Tar-Elenion 21:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

The sockpuppetry allegations have been disproved through sockpuppetry, and the twenty-two hour block you served already is sufficient for revert-warring.

Request handled by: -- tariqabjotu 19:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the admin considering unblocking, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tar-Elenion and the evidence therein. -- tariqabjotu 21:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Tariqabjotu

I just read what you said on "requests for checkuser" page [4]. Your statement "Note also this 3RR violation notice added by one of these two IPs, followed by Tar's acknowledgment of Paulcicero's response to it. I find it highly-suspicious that just happened to see that." Well if you look closer you will see that Paulcicero notified me on my talk page that "I stop reverting his changes". Of course surprised since I wasn't even here I followed his contributions and see that he has a curent revert-war with above mentioned anons, I then proceed to report it to you and to reply to Paulcicero, hoping that you will warn him not to throw such ridiculous accusations and of course pointing out that he is again revert-warring. And you come to such ridiculous concnlusions?! I can't believe you will sooner believe someone like Paulcicero and accuse me of such things. I have nothing to do with 58.xxx whatever IP's, It is not my fault this person (or persons) are making the same revert's to the article List of Serbs. You may have noticed I gave up from that article, yes I did a couple of reverts there but realized this article is crap anyway so if they want to add the "Queen of England" they can. Tar-Elenion 22:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I brought the matter up for review at WP:ANI. -- tariqabjotu 23:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

Well, you have been revert-warring heavily (that was used as a justification for your 22-hour block), and one specific edit of yours could even be seen (in a certain way) as trolling - but that's not the point. I am merely investigating all options, having on mind how much damage the troll Afrika paprika has done to the Wikipedian community. --PaxEquilibrium 15:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way - why did you delete the sockpuppetry case from your talk page and notified it as clean-up? --PaxEquilibrium 15:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have - and I see revert-warring on Roger Joseph Boskovic and Slavica Ecclestone. It is irrelevant if something is "false", for the preservation of accuracy we keep all posts, and if they overload, we simply archive them. I will quote the administrator that unblocked you after 22 hours of your block: "checkuser for sockpuppetry returns "unrelated"; block served so far is sufficient for revert-warring".

I'm sorry if I offended you in any way - I asure you that was not my intention, but since you say that there's something to be reported at WP:ANI, I strongly urge you to do so, because that's the only way to preserve peace and tranquility. In the case that your last post was a threat (it could be understood that way; referring to the "zero degree tolerance" bit), please do not intimidate other Wikipedians, as that's simply not what Wikipedia is NOT about. --PaxEquilibrium 16:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also strongly urge you yo report it to WP:ANI Paulcicero 20:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are correct - in the first few weeks of my Wiki-life I indeed have been extremely heavily edit-warring - but for more than a year I obey the WP:1RR guideline. Ever since recently, I'm trying out WP:0RR. I guess you also follow my steps to evade earning a reputation of an edit-warrior (you're already on your way; Nikola Smolenski and Paulicero have attained that reputation a long time ago).

Sockpuppetry (when someone is an abusive banned troll) is a very serious thing. I already expressed my good will, and so should you. To remove all confusion, tell me, should I conduct a check-user between you and Afrika paprika?

Due to the fact that you've repeated it 3 times, I urge you to report the farce (which I fail to see, sadly) to WP:AIV. You have my full encouraging support (just as anyone who obeys Wikipedia's policy). --PaxEquilibrium 22:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

Why have you removed protections from History of Croatia, Medieval Croatian state and Kingdom of Croatia? The protection there was for a reason (revert-warring) and now that you removed it without no explnation the revert-war continues. Tar-Elenion 11:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since I am not not a sysop i cant and have not removed any protection. I only removed the template because there was no protection. Cheers. Rettetast 15:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes; you have offended me in a way. Your replies were highly uncivil (and I noticed that you were threatening me twice). I'm sorry, but I have present convincing indications to pull up a CheckUser request. You might not be revert-warring right now, but ya did before. Anyway, this is totally irrelevant.

You shouldn't be worried at all. If you're not Afrika paprika, the CheckUser will remove all suspicions and I will apologize for suspecting. You should be worried only if you are Afrika paprika (which again puts me to this direction - you are worried about the User Check). --PaxEquilibrium 20:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what brought me to the conclusion you're Afrika paprika in the first place. :) --PaxEquilibrium 21:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've already had this kind of thing with User:Factanista (but he in the end admitted that he's Afrika paprika). No, there haven't been such cases in the past. The similarities between the IP you use (and the astronomical coincidences alluding that you're Afrika) already gives away much against your denial - but the check-user will put an end to all the confusions by putting an end to them (which means that you'll be either cleared of all suspicions or indefinitely blocked).

In arguable cases the Wikipedian Clerks always say inconclusive. Factanista (who was Afrika paprika) appealed bringing forth the very same arguments as you do, and the result was confirmed and not "inconclusive".

You could request unblock from your talk page thereafter. Factanista did it, but it was denied because the check user was pretty conclusive.

So there's nothing you need to worry about. If you're not Afrika paprika just seat back and wait for a while before all suspicions about you are cleared. --PaxEquilibrium 21:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Please remain calm & civil. I called you an edit-warrior, simply because I call anyone who fights edit wars "revert-warring people". You negated it yet again, but that's simply what you did do (observing all your contributions to the Wikipedia).

You were not cleared, the Check User failed because you were inactive so no one could track your down. Which AFAIK did not surprise us; Afrika paprika has created hoards of sock-puppets before and it's expectable that he became experienced by now (you were inactive right during the first CheckUser - there is a possibility that you did this to hide the data). And in the end; the Check-User that searched if you're a puppet of User:Afrika paprika - it came out positive.

This is the very same reaction (your response to this situation) that User:Factanista had after Check User confirmed he's a sock of Afrika (in the end Afrika paprika admitted as an anon using your AOL IP address that Factanista's one of "his boys").

Next to the "proof that I have that you're an edit-warrior" (though I don't see the relevance of mentioning this), there are tons of proofs that you're Afrika paprika's sock-puppet. First, you both have similar interests & write in a very similar way. Second and most important, Check User showed that you're Afrika paprika. And in the end, a user encouraged you, addressing to you "Afrika paprika" in Serbo-Croat (Croatian). Aside from tens of other weird coincidences, you appear to have showed up exactly when Afrika paprika stopped constantly appearing as an anon using your IP address. --PaxEquilibrium 18:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I expect you to do that because that is an ordinary thing expected from everyone on Wikipedia. No matter how controversial, not to say heated or even worse kinds of situations occur here on this free internet encyclopedia - people are advised to always remain calm & civil, because that will lead to a constructive solution (eventually). Accusing someone of being a sockpuppet is not outrageous as you see it; in the end socks are always discovered no matter what.

You said that you were cleared - the previous CheckUser was declined and did not claim that you are not Afrika paprika's sockpuppet, mainly due to your inactivity (data is present only for a very short time). I also consider this one of the allegations that your actually Afrika paprika himself, because that is exactly what Afrika would have done to evade Check-User. So I restarted it when you became active - and it showed that you're probably indeed Afrika paprika.

For those in question, please see this & this.

There are many proofs, the strongest of them being the actual Check-User. --PaxEquilibrium 18:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that we've met so far hundreds of thousands of sock-puppets and Wikipedia meets them almost on a daily basis and the fact that I met hundreds myself (the greatest number coming from Afrika paprika), sock-puppetry is a "very regular" thing.

In the end Check-User showed that you're Afrika paprika; and not decline it. Let's say you (which seems quite possible) evaded the check-user? How could the fact that "it's declined" count? In the end, Check-User says that you are Afrika paprika, rather. Compare the IPs with that of your own (the very last few digits only change to resemble the date when you edit).

I have numerous proofs (which I previously presented), the strongest and most convincing one being Check-User. --PaxEquilibrium 19:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

I already told you before to please remain calm & civil. Personal attacks do not lead anywhere. --PaxEquilibrium 19:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make personal attacks like you did in the edit summary calling me a "..lunatic..". The edit was fully justified (by various indications, most notably the Check-User). Note that I will be forced to report you if make more personal attacks so please remain calm & civil. --PaxEquilibrium 19:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Hello

I'll post this one to WP:AN/I in a moment -- looks a bit too complicated for me to act unilaterally. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

I'm sorry if I seem too harsh, but I do this in the best interests of Wikipedia.

I will not "leave you" as long as you disobey Wikipedia's policy. If you (or anyone else) is going to stay here, he/she will have to obey at least the basic of Wikipedia's policies regarding civility and no personal attacks. It is my (and everyone else's) duty that you realize that & the moment you do so - it will our (my) greatest victory (totally excluding the whole sock-puppetry incident right now). --PaxEquilibrium 21:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tar;

Although it is "your" page, you don't own any page on Wikipedia. This is standard procedure for cases like this; it notifies a possibility of sock-puppetry. Please do not remove it. --PaxEquilibrium 22:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(once more): Please remain calm & civil. It is the essence of cooperation in Wikipedia. I can understand that you might be furious, but this is leading nowhere - since this is exactly the same kind of behavior that's typical for User:Afrika paprika, for whom it is suspected that you're his sock-puppet.

That was not vandalism. To understand what Vandalism means in the world of Wikipedia, please read WP:VAND.

I will repeat - and investigation is underway. The tag should stay for now while it lasts. And I shall say once more: if you feel there's anything to be reported, I urge you to do so once more (as a Wikipedian's duty). Also please note, Wikipedia is not a place to threaten people or try to intimidate them into doing things. --PaxEquilibrium 23:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm not. I'm trying to show you a volatile attitude never helps. Please (I beseech thee) be calm & civil.

I am a mortal, which means that I do make mistakes (sometimes more frequent than not). In this case however, I am completely convinced. --PaxEquilibrium 12:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have called me a lunatic on Kubura's talk page even though I kept warning you that there is no excuse for making personal attacks. Consider this your last warning.

As for the sock-puppetry case, you're right, I'll leave it to the investigation; I think I owe you an apology (if you're not Afrika paprika; which I am completely convinced that you are). Can we not at least agree at one thing, that you leave the tag for the time being? --PaxEquilibrium 20:18, 10 March 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am not a sockpuppet! Please unblock me.

Decline reason:

And I'm not a pilot. Fly me to the moon. —Pilot guy (go around) 17:49, 11 March 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.

I warned you

I warned you Afrika; no matter how many sock-puppets you create to try to deceive us further, always shall we discover you. --PaxEquilibrium 15:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not AfrikaPaprika you idiot! Tar-Elenion 17:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't believe the "investigators" did a good job finding you out? --PaxEquilibrium 20:00, 11 March 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am NOT AfrikaPaprika! What is wrong with you people?!?

Decline reason:

The argument presented in the block rationale is persuasive. — Sandstein 20:45, 11 March 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.

Of course you're not AfrikaPaprika! You're Afrika paprika. :) --PaxEquilibrium 20:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations

I know about that, Tar.
Don't loose your nerve.
Stay calm.
If the admins tell you something what to do and what NOT to do, than listen to them and do what they say.
Otherwise, you'll earn blocking and other various wiki-punishments, not to mention that your reputation'll decrease seriously.
Don't use derrogative words like "idiot", "lunatic" and similar. Everything you say can be turned against you, it only gives the arguments to those who have something against you.
Don't get into any edit wars at all.
Don't remove wiki-tags, if the admin has put them on your userpage!
Don't respond to Pax's provocations.

Is that from personal experience? :D --PaxEquilibrium 20:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what he recently did, at least to me - he annoyed me, and when I didn't reacted (as he expected and hoped, see his "accusation"), he blamed me, no more no less, that I'm the sockmaster of an entire troll army.
He also harassed (wright word, see the words usen on the revision of your userpage from 01:57, 10 March 2007 by user Daniel.Bryant) me with changing the content of my userpage.
If "...he goes around and tell to other users that you're a sockpuppet...", that's forbidden by wiki-policy! That's the attempt to discredit an user. Person is innocent until the arguments proove the opposite!

Problem is - it's already been proven Tar-Elenion is Afrika's sock. :)) --PaxEquilibrium 20:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The messages like "consider this your last warning" and "I've warned you" are getting towards threat and intimidation.

No they aren't; I took them from Tags for warning users not to attack other users, insult them or behave violently in any other way (which Tar-Elenion did). --PaxEquilibrium 20:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See what wiki-policy says about that: [5]:
Harassment is defined as a pattern of disruptive behavior that appears to a reasonable and objective observer to have the purpose of causing negative emotions in a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of intimidating the primary target. The purpose could be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to encourage them to stop editing entirely..
For this what he did ([6], [7], [8], [9], [10], that's explicitly forbidden.
Ordinary user can't allow that to himself.
Pax is not an admin, and he has no right to do such things.

Please read Wikipedia's policy. Adminship is not a "high-er level". Everyone has the "authority" to warn aggressive/abusive editors. --PaxEquilibrium 20:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See these lines on the same wikipedia-policy page: "User space harassment - Placing numerous false or questionable 'warnings' on a user's talk page, restoring such comments after a user has removed them, placing 'suspected sockpuppet' and similar tags on the user page of active contributors, and otherwise trying to display material the user may find annoying or embarrassing in their user space is a common form of harassment."
Mention this, when you want to complain to admins about Pax's behaviour/statements.

Sure. The only problem is - Tar-Elenion is Afrika paprika's sockpuppet. :X --PaxEquilibrium 20:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, stay calm, don't overreact. Otherwise, admins won't listen to you as you would like to. Neither any ordinary user 'll stand on your side.
If you're not some kind of troll, don't be afraid.
My advice is: work like you normally did. No edit wars.
Sooner or later, some admin will start to ask questions about certain user's behaviour. Kubura 19:10, 11 March 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am not AfrikaPaprika

Decline reason:

Unblock abuse. — Yamla 03:04, 12 March 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.

BTF I would really like to see this "proof" for my block? Where is Bbatsell and his review of all this?

Also for admins and all others know that if I don't get my case reviewed and unblocked I will re-register again, I am not AfrikaPaprika and I will not stand for this crap. Getting people blocked (what PaxEquilibrium is doing) because of personal disputes is the lowest of the low. Tar-Elenion 21:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you watch carefully Tar (or better, Afrika), I have absolutely no dispute with this account of yours. The reason why you are blocked is simply because sock-puppetry under ban is strictly prohibited. --PaxEquilibrium 22:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Osijek Flag.gif listed for deletion

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as Image:Osijek Flag.gif has been listed for speedy deletion because you selected a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission. While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, a non-profit website, this is in fact not the case. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because content on Wikipedia needs to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial.

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If you have any questions please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you. Mart inp23 16:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]