User talk:64.18.16.251

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This IP address has been blocked temporarily.
CheckUser evidence has determined that this IP address is being used abusively;
the address has been blocked to prevent further abuse.
If you are a registered user and are seeing this message, please post {{unblock}} on your talk page, with a note
referencing this message. Please be sure to include the IP address (which should appear at the bottom of the block message).
Administrators: Please consult with the checkuser who placed the block before unblocking.
This user talk page is currently semi-protected to prevent sock puppets of currently blocked or banned users from editing it. Please discuss changes on the talk page, or request unprotection.

Advice

Please stop targeting one or more users' talk pages for abuse or insults, unwarranted doctoring or blanking. It can be seen as vandalism and may get you blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Shanel 20:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents

Vandalism

Your vandalism is not acceptable. Croatian historian 18:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block on Ante Starčević

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 8 hours. Please discuss this here if you wish to William M. Connolley 13:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Ante Pavelić

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on a page. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. - Ali-oops✍ 14:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. Removing warnings from your talk page is considered vandalism. You will be blocked from editing Wikipedia and your talk page will be protected from editing if you do it again. - Ali-oops✍ 19:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


No problem. I was teasing you for seeing that you put this warning 'You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule' only here and not to talk pages of others who were regularly reverting the same page twice a day - day after day. If you are offended by my response or you have another reason to excercise your admin privileges - go ahead and do it!
I really do not like it when a man is unacceptably selective while treating others some way.
Best reagrds —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.18.16.251 (talk • contribs).
Just as well I'm not a man, so :-) - Ali-oops✍ 14:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Do You speak english?

I wrote

Previously reverted text is already on talk page.

Now, which part You didn't understand?

--Ante Perkovic 12:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Odakle si?

Bok,

Vidim da dosta cesto uredjujes clanke vezane uz Hrvatsku. Odakle si? Iz Hrvatske ili si "gastarbajter" :)?

--Ante Perkovic 12:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Neo-nazism in Croatia

Vidi Talk:Neo-Nazism#Laundry_list_of_links, prije nego sto napravite promjenu. Vodomar 06:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Nema potrebe. Reference moraju biti kako bi se podkrijepilo ono sto je napisano
Uzmi sebi neko ime, tako da ne pričam sa osobom koja se koristi sa anonimizatorom. Vodomar 09:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Do not disrupt wikipedia to make a point

Please, stop making bad jokes just to prove a point. --Ante Perkovic 14:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Your reverting

You keep reverting the article Neo-Nazism without explanation. I am ready for discussion and have provided my arguments on the talk page, but you have not replied anything sensible. I do not intend to engage in an edit war. Therefore, I will give you a day or two to explain your position. After that, I will assume you are acting in bad faith and invite administrators to sort this out. --Zmaj 14:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Copied from User_talk:Zmaj:
As I said - you did not explain anything. To make you partially happy - I removed just two refereces. No need for re-wording the last paragraph--64.18.16.251 19:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)<end copy>
Funny thing, You removed exactly those references that proves croatian police doing their work. Talking about NPOV... right.. like you are capable of ever writing something afirmative about Croatia. No, your prejadices are just to strong for that to happen.
Another funny thing is that one of the links is the one that I wrote you about (remember "thank you for proving my point" discussion?). --Ante Perkovic 08:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
The article is not about Croatian police - either, they are pretending working against the Ustashe. Anyway, I've put back the reference I removed before. Hope it'll make you happy.--64.18.16.251 13:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your readiness to talk, but we have still not started a serious discussion. You misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia. It is not to make me or Ante happy, but to make good articles. So let us continue the discussion on the talk page of Neo-Nazism. I explained that manifestations of ethnic hatred are not Neo-Nazism. You seem to think differently. Please provide your arguments there. --Zmaj 13:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
You did not explain anything - you've claimed it! The Neo-Nazims and entic hatred are intertwined in today's Croatia. Obviously, not in China or India. - Just read the references.--64.18.16.251 17:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Neo-Nazims and entic hatred are are interwinded, but they are not equivalent. You can't claim that every possible case anti-serbian sentiment is fascism. That is proposterous.
Most people's dislike of Serbs is the result of serbian politics of the 1990's, not of anybody's ideology from the 1940's.
It's like claiming that 99% Palestinians are neo-Nacists because they dislike Jews. --Ante Perkovic 18:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I do not want waste my time discussing nonsense like the one you are pursuing.--64.18.16.251 19:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Why do you delete tags???

Can you explaine me why you deleted {{ActiveDiscuss}} from Neo-Nazism in Croatia?

Is it because you didn't even bother to do anything more than just to revert?

This is a very bad way to contribute wikipedia.

--Ante Perkovic 15:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Breaking 3RR?

Hi,

I saw that you and User:Purger all together made 4 reverts in last 24h.

Since I believe that you two are the same person and that you log in and out in order to evade breaking 3RR, I see this as a exotic kind of sock puppetry.

So, I will have to ask you to tell me are you and User:Purger the same person.

I do have right to ask this, because if I'm right, then this could be called vreaking the 3RR.

So, are you the same person as user:Purger?

--Ante Perkovic 16:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Definitely - I am not Purger!--64.18.16.251 17:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad to hear that! Since I don't believe you, I'm opening a case at WP:RCU. And, since you have nothing to hide, I excpect you to support my request. It's a great opportunity to make me look a little paranoid. Don't miss it! Support my request!
Hi! Since you are not a Purger, please answer this simple question: do you agree that we make WP:RCU on this. If you support this, it will almost certainly be done. As you said yourself, you have nothing to hide. Please, answer this question - do you agree that we make a RCU on you? Yes or no?
No. You are a man that lacks good manners and a man whose heroes are war criminals! Please, stop dropping your garbage here!
This is poor attempt to change the subject from your sock-puppetry, and the part related to war criminals is pure slender. You didn't even explained why you wouldn't like to give me a chance to prove to everybody that you are not Purger. You have nothing to lose, isn't it ;)? --Ante Perkovic 16:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

So, you're not Purger. Good ;).

Avoiding to break 3RR?

Hi,

You made your 4th change in 24h and 2 minutes :). Looks like you are trying to avoid breaking the 3RR? So, when we can expect your next revert? Around 15:36h UT?

It would be much easier for you if you just create one more sock-puppet, wouldn't it?

--Ante Perkovic 14:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you log?

Hi,

I know that you have right to stay unlogged, but I suggest you to log. Otherwise, people might assume that you still deny that you are user:Purger.

It would be best for all that you finally admit to others what is clear as a day and we might go from the start.

Also, it would be nice that you stop deleting sock-puppet warnings from your sock-puppet's pages. I have them all on my watchlist, so it's useless anyway.

So, can you make a fresh new start?

I promise I'll try to see you as a new person, regardless of your previous misconducts.

--Ante Perkovic 12:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

O, come on... Just stop pretending that tis IP was ever user by anyone except you - user:Purger. A 2-digit-IQ person can see, by looking at this IP's contriutions, that it was so far used by single person, and that person is user:Purger.

Your prolonged denial (revisionism, apologism ... pick one of your favorite etiquetes ;) ... just make you look more and more unmature. --Ante Perkovic 10:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Deleting this page

Hi, user:Purger!

I understand that you would like to hide your past by trying to prove that this is not a page of a user with permanent IP but mere fact that you deleted it using this very IP makes your try ridiculous.

--Ante Perkovic 05:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This IP is blocked

Since this IP is used by User:Velebit and his socks exclusively, I have blocked it. --Dijxtra 11:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../6/4/2E/User_talk%7E64.18.16.251.html"