User talk:C filev

September 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Serbs, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Ale_Jrb ^talk 09:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did to Serbs, you will be blocked from editing.

Stop changing sourced population figures. Admins checking this editor, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive563#persistent_vandal_of_population_figures. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Since, despite the above warnings, you have continued to make the same unconstructive edits without any explanation, you have been blocked for 31 hours. When you return, please start discussing what you are trying to do here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 2009

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Bulgarians, Bosniaks, Czechs, Croats, etc., you will be blocked from editing. — Emil J. 14:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing.

Stop adding unsourced population figures to the articles of Croats, Bulgarians, etc. You have to provide sources for your changes. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Tan | 39 15:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

........ C filev 20:56, 23 September 2010(UTC)

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)}}|[reply]

........ C filev 20:56, 23 September 2010(UTC)

Beeblebrox (talk) 20:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC) Original research is not allowed here. You have to cite reliable sources.--> Gggh ^talk/_contribs 18:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September 2010

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).

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

Request reason:

Can you unblock me please C filev 20:58, 23 September 2010(UTC)

Decline reason:

No reason given to unblock.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 18:17, 23 September 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

Тoo much time I am blocked for changing numbers without publishing sources for them, I think it's compatible to ask for unblocking.

Decline reason:

I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:38, 24 September 2010 (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.

October and November 2010

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).

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

Request reason:

I understand, why I have been blocked , I have changed numbers of naions, without publishing sources. I will not do this again.

Decline reason:

I might be willing to believe you except that you've been blocked twice for this; apparently things didn't get through the first time. If you are unblocked, what edits do you intend to make to Wikipedia? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:13, 9 October 2010 (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|Before I was blocked, I didn't know that the sources are mandatory and I was removing and taking information not very carefully. I would use sources now for general information, for example: numbers in nation and I would not vandalize again, like I have done in page for Bulgarians, Serbs, Czechs and other pages. Is that enough fr?}} User:C filev 22:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I believe you have tried to use your editing "style" from other Wikipedias here. Now, as you see, the policies here are not the same as the policies elsewhere. I would guess that most of English Wikipedia policies are far more prohibitive than any of the Wikipedias you have previously edited. I will therefore give you a last chance to do some constructive editing - note that any more problems will almost certainly result in another indefinite block. I also note that no-one had bothered to provide you will a "welcome" template - I will add one below this box, there are lots of links to the various policies that are used here, I suggest you have a good read of them before commencing any editing.

Request handled by: Ronhjones ^(Talk)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Welcome

Hello, C filev! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Blocked again

For continued disruption while editing log out as 78.83.249.8, I have reblocked your account indefinitely. You may appeal this block by adding {{unblock}} template. Elockid ^(Talk) 19:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, could you unblock my other account User:C philev, that was blocked as a sockpupet of this exblocked account C filev 22:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason being? Elockid ^(Talk) 20:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You first have to warn me, you didn't warn me at least once, that's not honestly. And I don't understand for what I am blocked, for editing unlogged? C filev 12:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've already been blocked and warned for your disruptive edits which you have been doing while log out as 78.83.249.8. Given the warnings on your IP sock's page and your account's page, the block and on your account is totally justified. Also, you've already been sufficiently warned in the past. There is absolutely no need to warn you again. You were given a second chance, but the behaviour after the block is still disruptive. This is evidently you with the same exact reason in addition to the contributions. Poor man's checkuser also indicated that my block did not give you an autoblock. That could only mean that you were editing from a blocked IP address. Note, I blocked that IP address before you were blocked. A word of advice, lying will not help you to gain the community's trust. A statement on your other account stating that the account is not you. But you have admitted to me that that account is yours and the last request even had the same unblock reason. Elockid ^(Talk) 14:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/78.83.249.8. Look that and see that I haven't been warned, you've blocked me without warn. And I haven't did vandalism, I don;t want to show you all my edits and evidence, if I was doing vandalism you shall to show me as you block me, *I only did vandalism two or three times in Albania's page, but I haven't seen that I was removing sources(just a mistake) and you can't block me for this without warn. Give reason why you blocked me without warn, that's unhumaned you had to warn me????? And when you accuse me for vandalism again and blocked me twice for it, what reason I have to give for unblocking, but that's not true I haven't been doing vandalism i just mistaked in Albania's page that's not reason to block me. And also when you don't warn me you have to block me for hours or week, not indefinetely!!C filev 19:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said previously, you were given a second chance and the second chance wasn't use very constructively. Quote:I only did vandalism two or three times in Albania's page. "And I haven't did vandalism". Isn't this contradicting? Is there a particular reason while you were edit warring while being logged out? Secondly, what reason(s) can you give why the block should be removed other than the ones you've been stating? Tnxman already decline your unblock request which basically uses the same reason you are stating. Given that you have lied about your previous account, is there a reason why the community should trust you? Please respond. Elockid ^(Talk) 18:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I contune to vandalize (as you pervert)-no, but the truth is that I didn't vandalize- I only mistaked some 2 or 3 times in one page(Albania). After that you didn't warn me at laest once and block me not for hours, not for week, but indefinetely-honestly I've been supruised. You delete the list of my contribbutions and now you say that I've been vandalizing. Stop this guff and unblock me there were no reason and any vandalism to block me.

I remembered the vandalism(that's human mistake not vandalism) for you blocked me, I 've removed 2 refered statistics without knowing(CIA's religion distribution of Albania and US.gov. religion distr. of Albania) that are all things that I have removed as a mistake, when i was editing. That's two removings by mistake, is that vandalism and have you done mistakes like that? C filev 21:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are not blocked for vandalism. Your are blocked for repeated disruptive editing. Secondly, I never blocked you or the IP for a week. Thirdly, several editors on the IP page have complained about your editing. The conditional reason to your unblock was "any more problems will almost certainly result in another indefinite block". I believe that you have not fulfilled the conditional reason from what I have stated and seen. You still have not answered the other questions I have asked nor given any advancing arguments. Please do so. Fourthly, your explanations are not consistent. You know, you can also still try to appeal your block by adding the unblock template. Elockid ^(Talk) 19:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]