User talk:Javier93h

March 2014

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved, as you did to Basque conflict, without good reason. They need to have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. Wikipedia has some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Valenciano (talk) 17:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UPyD

As I said you on the Spanish Wikipedia, the case in UPyD isn't a grammatical mistake. The name refers to a "Union" of "Progress and Democracy", not a simple sequence of "unconnected" nouns. Therefore, the actual name of the party doesn't a have a comma because there's no enumeration of nouns and it's only a concept that refers to a union of another two concepts (the progress and democracy). Regards. --Sfs90 (talk) 23:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppet investigation

You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Javier93h in connection with possible sockpuppetry. Valenciano (talk) 16:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Block

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).

Javier93h (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello, I have been blocked for using puppets to prevail my opinion in a proposed transfer at Union, Progress and Democracy. I know that that I have mistaken but I felt desperate because Hdvs69 is an user that isn't interested in reaching an agreement. He doesn't accept the truth demonstrated by the sources that I put. He just wants contradict me and he doesn't mind putting a wrong name knowingly harming Wikipedia. He even accused me of wanting to manipulate the meaning of the name of my party when it's exactly what he is doing. I really felt insulted because he doesn't accept my arguments and the references I gave and he only based on the mistaken belief that when the party uses its name without comma it wants to express a "union" for "progress and democracy". Although there were no references which made inconsistent this speculation it would be very difficult to accept the personal interpretation as valid. But if there is also references in which two important people of UPyD (Mikel Buesa and Irene Lozano) explained UPyD's denomination meaning that make invalid this speculative interpretation, it's impossible that Union for Progress and Democracy or Progress and Democracy Union are right translates. Anyway, I pledge to stop using puppets and I apply for being unblocked.Javier93h (talk) 20:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per point made by Jeské below. — Daniel Case (talk) 03:47, 3 May 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.

One party's obstinance does not excuse the use of sockpuppets to skew a discussion. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The obstinance is not mine but Hdvs69 who is pawned to move and in use on Wikipedia the worst possible translates of UPyD's name. I only wanted to keep the best translate of the name of my party for the benefit of Wikipedia. I didn't know how to deal with trolls like Hdvs69. A troll that doesn't mind to cause damage to Wikipedia only for getting I was angry.Javier93h (talk) 22:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't accusing you of being obstinate, and that should have been clear from what I wrote. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 08:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Block

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).

Javier93h (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am a person who loves editing positively on Wikipedia and therefore I'll always do it. I'd like be unblocked so as not to have to use sock-puppets no more. I'm NOT interested in vandalizing or harming Wikipedia. This indefinite block was fair in its moment, but not now that I have already promised not to use sock-puppets again if I were unblocked. From my point of view, blocks are a method of prevention against vandalism, not a method of punishment. This block is useless to prevent vandalism because I love contributing positively on Wikipedia that I'm not be able to stop doing it forever. Hdvs69 wanted to harming Wikipedia due to a strong dispute on Spanish Wikipedia. He harmed Wikipedia because he lied to everybody and I admit which it was a big mistake creating sock-puppets instead of using the enormous quantity of arguments which I had. My intention is always good, even though it doesn't sometimes seem it. If I were unblocked, I would NEVER use sock-puppets again.Javier93h (talk) 09:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but you've pledged to stop socking before and failed to do so; you've also outright lied during the investigation of one of your sock accounts. This makes it very difficult to trust your integrity. You seem to only be making this pledge as you were recently caught deceptively using socks and repeating the same edit warning and disruptive behavior; this makes the rest of your assurances sketchy at best. I would suggest stepping away for a while, and put some space between this latest incident and your next request. Needless to say, further socking makes acceptance of any future requests very unlikely. Kuru (talk) 01:37, 15 November 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.