User talk:194.9.5.12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions.

Currently, you are editing without a username. You can continue to do so, as you are not required to log in to Wikipedia to read and edit articles; however, logging in will result in a username being shown instead of your IP address (yours is 194.9.5.12). Logging in does not require any personal details, and there are many other benefits for logging in.

When you edit pages:

  • Please respect others' copyrights; do not copy and paste the contents from webpages directly.
  • Please use a neutral point of view when editing articles; this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
  • If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
  • Do not add unreasonable contents into any articles, such as copyrighted text, advertisement messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Adding such content or editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. For now, if you are stuck, you can click the edit this page tab above, type {{helpme}} in the edit box, and then click Save Page; an experienced Wikipedian will be around shortly to answer any questions you may have. Also feel free to ask a question on my Talk page. I will answer your questions as far as I can! Thank you again for contributing to Wikipedia. William M. Connolley 14:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Blocked

[edit] Regarding reversions[1] made on October 6, 2006 to Various terms used for Germans

 You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.
The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 14:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


As for the blocking of my IP which you has been initiated by User Rex Germanus by alleging I was User Ulritz, please refer to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kilo-Lima/Archives/Archive_VI#please_unblock_user_194.9.5.12 (194.9.5.10 16:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Regarding edits made during November 15, 2006 (UTC) to Dutch people

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If this is an IP address, and it is shared by multiple users, ignore this warning if you did not make any unconstructive edits. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Thank you for bringing that to my attention. Unfortunatley, the wording is not that of an appropriate dictionary article. There are many ironies in life. If you have a citation, or a valid source making that statement, then I would not have reverted it. If you have any more questions, let me know. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You are blocked for one week as an obvious sockpuppet of User:Ulritz under the Arbcom ruling, for revert-warring on Dutch people. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your unblock request

Hi (answering in English, I suppose you won't mind). - You were engaged in some pretty nasty revert-warring, so some block was clearly warranted, it was just a question of whether it would be a "normal" 3RR block or an Arbcom block. Immediately after I blocked you I submitted the case to checkuser for review (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ulritz). I was then away for most of yesterday and couldn't react immediately. By the time I came back, Dmcdevit had indeed responded that you were likely not identical with Ulritz. However, he and Fred Bauder had also made the proposal that you should be included in the same Arbcom probation as Rex and Ulritz (see WP:RFAR, towards the bottom). That's not official yet, but I took it to mean that at least they supported the block.
By the way, as for principles of just process, Wikipedia policy is in fact counter to real-world justice insofar as in dubio pro reo is explicitly not upheld with sockpuppet suspicions. You may not like it, but that's the way it is (it's somewhere in WP:SOCK, don't remember where.)
So, well, okay, I'll go out on a leg and unblock, sort of shortening this to a "normal" 3RR case. But be aware of that pending Arbcom injunction against you - you might as well start behaving as if it was already in place right now. Absolutely no further revert-warring tolerated.
Oh, and by the way, the "correct" way of making such a request would have been with an {unblock} on your own talk page, that way you wouldn't have needed to break the block the way you did now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Just to make sure you're informed, the Arbcom have now actually extended the probations to you: [2] So that's not more than 1 revert per article per week for you, in future. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../1/9/4/User_talk%7E194.9.5.12.html"