User talk:Maurice27/Archive 2

Maurice27	Sandbox	Articles	Wikipedians Quotes	Movie Quotes	Talk	#27

Archives
2008 2009 2010

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Talk:International Space Station#The Failed FAC. Thank you. Colds7ream (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a respected contributor to the above article, you're probably best placed to deal with the issues with it. If you want to take it on, I believe there is a lack of: inline citations in particular; good English; and specificity - parts of the article explain heraldry in general, and are not sufficiently (IMHO) to be included in the article (eg. most of the Definitions section). Thanks, - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 19:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, sorry because my poor english.

Hi, i don't want to start a undo-war or something like that, but the avionews post is only a rumour. It's a propaganda speech from a Milan SEA not a declaration of any SIA officer.

I've talked with the SIA spanish comercial manager and he says me that the italian SIA officers inmediatly deny that issue, nor the SIA-BCN cancellation, nor the FCO-MXP flights traspassing... and all is a simply propaganda from Milan in this moments of crisis. This was also confirmed by SIA London regional headquarters...

Unfortunately, I haven't found any italy/UK SIA press relase dennying the Milan SEA president affirmations but i think that informations that I have are enough to question the avionews article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferranfc (talk • contribs) 14:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because of that, I have "twicked" the comment from "until summer 2009" to "probably until summer 2009, in which they could codeshare with other Star Alliance partners"

In the article, the text refered (Today the SiA flights carry out the Singapore-Malpensa-Barcelona route but in short time the flight will be reduced to Singapore-Malpensa route, while the continuation to Barcelona will be assured by Lufthansa Italia), is not referenced as Bonomi's words but as an explanation by Avionews.

The comments is not anymore an affirmation but a puntuation between brackets. Sincerely, I fail to see your urge to remove it. Cheers. --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 13:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a urge to remove it. I don't remove it. I only explain it to you the situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.58.34.97 (talk) 14:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Today when I woke up, I found a whole lot of personal attacks from user 89.130.28.68 against me.

Messages such as:

• "THIS USER IS SUCH A STUPID AND BIASED WIKIPEDIA EDITOR. SHOULD BE BANNED FOREVER!" on my user page.
• A blanking of my talk-page whith the following message "buaagh i'm sick only reading this user please..remove him from wiki!!!!".
• "that is fucking stupid and haves no sense!!!! That is a person with various nationalities NOT A NATIONALITY OF SPAIN . ONLY MAURICE27 CAN SAY THAT!" in theNationalities of Spain article.
• "WTF!!! IS NOT POSSIBLE THAT MAURICE27 IS STILL EDITING THIS ARTICLE FROM A SUCH BIASED AND STUPID POV!!!!!!" in the Catalonia article. (NOTICE that I hadn't edit that article since January 17, 2009

I ask you if you can do anything to stop this kind of behaviour with a ban from a user who has been attacking me sinceApril 2, 2007 and who I'm pretty sure is a sockpuppet from User:Martorell due to him removing this text [1] from my user page. Thanks for your help. --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 10:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP blocked for a week. I left a note at Joanot's talk page. I see that you removed that reference to him from your userpage. Please, do not do it again.

I really don't see the need of the Nationalities of Spain disambiguation page. You havemerely 2 articles to disambuig but that can be done by having 1 primary topic with a disambiguation link at the top of the main article. I have no idea about the verifiability of the claim but it seems like original research which creates more problems than it solves. Plus, of course, the fact that the page was created to be used as a redirect and not a disambig and it has been suggested that the articles be merged. Please try to fix that. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Catalan people. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. It's not at all clear that what you are reverting is obvious WP:Vandalism. Toddst1 (talk) 13:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Catalan_people. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. I am specifically referring to your edit summary in this edit. Toddst1 (talk) 13:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one fortnight in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeating personal attacks/uncivil behaviour [2] (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Catalonia#Findings_of_fact).. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Toddst1 (talk) 00:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's the way!!!! I love your words: "I'm sure consensus can be reached on this page as to which version is appropriate". Well, blocking me it's the best way to let the only two editors who were really trying to reach that consensus (user:Coentor and myself, do their job... If only you had read the talk page when I asked you.... Well, at least you blocked the article, but again, if only you had done it the first time I ask you for it... Now, as soon as you remove this block, we MAY be able to continue the discussion. --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 06:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be in violation of WP:3RR WP:EW there as what you've reverted does not fit the definition of WP:Vandalism. Toddst1 (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like you to explain here and now where did I use the words "vandal" or "vandalism" in the Revision history since you blocked me (last time I did was 21:08, 6 May 2009 more than a month ago)... Where did I Toddst1? You are now lying when accusing me here above. I haven't use "the definition of WP:Vandalism" when reverting lately. So, are you making use of your privileges as an administrator to harass me?

Due to past blocks on you part to me and your lack of iniciative at protecting not only me, but all other users participating at that article, I will consider your above message ad hominem threats and harassment personally directed against me.

If you accuse me again of violatiing WP:3RR you are pushing too hard! You know the anon keeps vandalising the article even if a consensus was reached. On your part you are not doing anything to prevent it. The anon has edited many more times than me and another bunch of users is also reverting the vandal anon. Why am I the only warned by you? Is this a personal fixation against me? Watch yourself Toddst1... I'm thinking about opening at Wikipedia:RFC/ADMIN an Appeal to the Arbitration Committee against you. Are you going to block me again for asking them for help? Or will you prevent the article to be vandalize? Probably your only interested in getting another banstar to your collection instead than making your job as admin? You are so conceited. If you protected the article we would not need to revert the anon. I do not salute you. --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 06:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that the edits by the IP, like this one, are naked POV pushing. And that, at first sight, they appear to go against the consensus reached at Talk:Catalan_people#Let.27s_find_the_final_version. And that it's a reincident POV pusher that the IP is called "vandal" by three different established users in the talk page (counting Maurice himself). I would suggest semi-protecting the article and the IP, and not taking Maurice's reverts as vandalism fighting.

And, Maurice, chill out, please. You are just going to get yourself blocked for incivility. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enric, I thank you for your support. But this administrator is personally attacking and threatening me for who knows which reasons. I will not tolerate it! BTW, He has also ignored Coentor when he asked him to protect the article. So don't lose your time suggesting him "semi-protecting the article and the IP". He won't! --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 07:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you've been using the abbreviation "RV" many times - as recent as yesterday - to undo revisions to the aforementioned article. See here. This abbreviation is standard here for "revert vandalism". Also, your reaction here is a bit of a strawman argument; it really doesn't matter if you call it vandalism or not - 3RR is 3RR. Stop edit warring and be a bit more civil, or you will be blocked. Tan | 39 15:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Tan - I was very close to blocking you for a month for that "collecting barnstars" comment, but since you were given a 3RR warning when you hadn't come close to violating it, I'm holding off. Civility, please. (Oh, and Tan -- I use "rv" for revert, and "rvv" for revert vandalism. It's possible Maurice uses the same covention.)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RV is exactly my same meaning for revert as I always use RVV or RV vandalism in the other case. It is for that same reason I didn't understand Toddst1 accusation in first place. I would like you also to explain to me why is the "collecting barnstars comment" so "offensive"... because I just don't get it. I'm not insulting him, I'm just making an opinion --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 20:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point of mentioning that the edits don't fit the definition of vandalism is that reverting vandalism is not considered edit warring. This was not the case. Toddst1 (talk) 20:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might have been the case, but an edit war was not the way to determine it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still really don't get it. Why am I the only accused editor? why? what about the anon? what about his 40 reverts? We (and I say WE (Coentor, Cnoguera, Mountolive and myself)) have only tried for days to get a semi-protection of the article. Toddst1 hasn't done anything. We only tried to keep the consensual version. why am I the only warned editor? I didn't brake the 3RR so, why was I warned? --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 22:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Start collecting information for an Request for Comment, or drop it. WP is not your personal WP:SOAPBOX where you can go around ACCUSEing people of the same thing, over and over. Further comment in this vein on this subject will be considered disruptive editing, and may be subject to blocking. If something new happens, bring it to WP:AN/I with the bare minimum of facts and evidence. The more you tell everyone that you're the wronged party, the less we believe it. For a sample RFC/U, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jebbrady, which I put together a while back, or any other certified RFC in the list. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, RFC/ADMIN is not an appeal to Arbcom.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And this got an ANI thread, of course. Maurice, do you see what I meant? :P Next time shallow your pride and shut up, how many edits to articles could you have done in all the time that you are going to spend now defending yourself?

And now stop arguing with Toddst1 and go to WP:RFPP and request a semi-protection due to "persistent long-term reverts against consensus by one person using IPs, forcing editors in the page to reach 3RR" or something similar. It's way more effective that asking to an admin. (This is not the Spanish wikipedia, my experience is that most administrators here are a lot less responsive to requests, and they won't usually take any hard action until they are forced by circumstances). Drop me a note in my talk page when you make the request in WP:RFPP.

De veras te lo digo, hombre, déjalo pasar y ya está, joder. Aquí se viene a escribir artículos y no a que te traten con cariño, así que muchas veces uno se ha de fastidiar, tragarse el orgullo y los cabreos, y callarse, por el bien de mantener la paz y que se sigan escribiendo los artículos. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Ani#Continued_personal_attacks_by_Maurice27. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 15:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on Republican Left of Catalonia . While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Continued edit warring may cause you to be blocked. Your efforts to discuss the situation on the talk page are noted, but not a license to continue reversion. Toddst1 (talk) 17:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a member of the Aviation WikiProject or one of its subprojects, you may be interested in testing your skills in the Aviation Contest! I created this contest, not to pit editor against editor, but to promote article improvement and project participation and camraderie. Hopefully you will agree with its usefulness. Sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here. The first round of the contest may not start until September 1st-unless a large number of editors signup and are ready to compete immediately! Since this contest is just beginning, please give feedback here, or let me know what you think on my talkpage. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 01:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]