User talk:Eiorgiomugini/Archive 2

You have been temporarily prevented from editing Wikipedia following this report. Thanks for your comprehension, and I look forward to seeing you editing again in the near future. yandman 16:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eiorgiomugini, I have responded to your comments in the talkpage of Blackpowder. You may have good reasons for doing what you are doing, but to other people they appear to be disruptive. That article was not written by me; but from a European perspective I consider it to be technically correct. In due course I, (or if not me, other people) will reference the paragraphs that you consider to be in need of references. However, I am not prepared for you to dictate how I spend my time editing articles; or what articles I choose to edit. I am not trying to defend the article, it needs improvement; and, I'm sorry, but I just don't think that your way is the best way of achieving that aim. Pyrotec 18:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eiorgiomugini, Thanks for your reply. I am not sure if you know this, but if you put the flag {unreferenced} (Note: it needs two brackets at each end to make it work) at the beginning of a article, or a section, you can invite authors to add references. It avoids the need to flag several paragraphs that are missing references; and it avoids other people (possibly mistakenly) thinking that it is disruptive editing. Regards Pyrotec 20:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my discussion of the definition of gunpowder in the talk pages of talk:Gunpowder. You may wish to amend your last edit to Gunpowder; or, alternatively you may wish to add to my discussion on the talk page of gunpowder. Best regards Pyrotec 21:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just take a look to the page dedicated to the Shatuo Turks - they were the same people, known as Seyanto or Xueyantuo. This must be fixed one way or another, I'd say by merging pages (do not know how to proceed: you're the expert here, in comparison). User: Basil II 22:15, 19 April 2007 (CET)

Ok - let's keep 'em divided, if unsure. I'd point however to the plausibility of a link between them - at worst - the likely transmission of an ethnonym - like, say, the Burgundians --> Bourguignons despite having changed very much from roaming barbarians to a powerful feudal state.

This edit summary is incivil, and this one is abusive. Maintain a civil dialogue, and refrain from personal attacks. ··coelacan 10:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After some further checking -- are you using a newer version of Bo's version of Zizhi Tongjian than the one that I use? The page citation you gave, in my copy, goes to somewhere in the vol. 50 range, not vol. 46, nor does it support your assertion that the surname was Yishi and not Xue. In any case, though, it's fairly well attested that at least Duomozhi used "Xue." --Nlu (talk) 13:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Unreferenced reads: "There is currently no consensus about where to place this template; most suggest either the top of the article page, the bottom of the article page (in an empty 'References' section), or on the article talk page". Please stop silly revert warring about things you don't know as well as I do. --Ghirla^-трёп- 17:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad that the matter is now resolved. I appreciate your contributions and invite you to collaborate on articles about the Gokturks. The coverage of the great empire in Wikipedia is appaling. --Ghirla^-трёп- 17:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you should check the above guideline before making edits like this one. Your original research is safe on the article's talk page. --Ghirla^-трёп- 17:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I applied to User:Briangotts for clarification of this and this. Hopefully Brian will advise us on how to proceed further. --Ghirla^-трёп- 18:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, your edits make no sense and destroy the continuity and logic of the article. Please stop. If you don't, I'll have to take action against you. --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You would be well advised not to address your fellow editors with this type of profanity. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:Style and other guidelines. Refs and notes are properly two different sections. Please also review WP:OWN and accept that you do not have any property interest over Ashina, Gokturks, or any other articles. Your behavior is going to result in you being blocked (yet again). Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help with the Chinese mountains. However, it would be useful if you commented instead of just silently amending. Is the Nan Shan identical to the Qilian Shan, or does the Altun Shan also form part of it? Should these articles be merged? What is the height of Qilian peak? 5,547 m, or 6,346 m? dab (𒁳) 10:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on my talkpage. dab (𒁳) 10:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you are again systematically following my edits and reverting them. You should understand that this activity may result in reprisals. I also don't understand why you insist on removing red links to non-existent articles about notable persons. Is it a case of eritrophobia? Your activity does not encourage me to work on the articles even remotely connected with China, so I have to leave editing this segment of Wikipedia in disgust. I hope that you are happy now. Ghirla^-трёп- 17:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eritrophobia is the phobia of red colour. It has nothing to do with sexual desire. --Ghirla^-трёп- 17:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to help with Suyab, please check my message on Talk:Suyab. --Ghirla^-трёп- 21:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you insist on splitting my text into very small sections and moving it about the article, I have difficulty in understanding what exactly you have added. Your additions are welcome, moving the text to and fro through the article is not. --Ghirla^-трёп- 21:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sources quoted by me claim that the city was evacuated by the Chinese who passed authority to the first khagan of the Turgesh whose rule was sanctioned by China, his ally. After his death, the Chinese returned to the city. They also say that at first the city was settled mainly by Soghdians. For what it's worth, I nominated the article on T:TDYK. It may appear on Main Page in a day or two. --Ghirla^-трёп- 21:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ashina. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Hello. If you wish to file another Request for Mediation, you are more than welcome to (just put like Ashina 2 or something as the title, so we know it's a new case). However, as your case was rejected on the grounds that no one agreed to mediation with you, that might be an issue again. Be sure to let everyone know that you've filed a mediation and you would kindly like their acceptance so the process can go forward. Hope this clears things up a bit. Regards, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 16:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that I ever wrote anything about Li Bai's birthplace. If I did, I was just rearranging and copyediting the existing text. As for the image, I'm sure you learnt about it from the weblink and/or image I had provided to Gokturks. After I uploaded one image, I was preparing to upload another when you decided to upload it on your own. So what do you accuse me of? --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not an hour but twenty minutes. Yes I think it is a coincidence. If you feel like uploading it as PD-old, please do. I don't mind. By the way, the article you see today on Main Page was started by me from material provided by another guy. It's not a valid reason for taking offense. --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit of yours you deleted two refs provided by me, accompanying it with the edit summary "please don't remove my references". How crass is that? I've had enough "collaborations" with you. Good bye, Ghirla^-трёп- 09:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm satisfied with the present revision of Suyab. Let's move on to other articles. --Ghirla^-трёп- 10:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have no right to remove transliterations of foreign-language titles and push their translations into the text of the article. Any translation (if it was not previously published) technically qualifies as original research and may be removed. You should revise your attitude towards references and check our guidelines. Since I contributed to more than one featured article with Cyrillic references, I daresay I understand those rules better than you think. --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your behaviour at present is disruptive. You have been repeatedly told to desist from removing references, yet you persist. Note that you may be blocked from editing either for edit-warring or for disruptive behaviour in general if you do not assume a more collaborative attitude. dab (𒁳) 15:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be in violation of WP:3RR; 13:57 14:15 14:54 15:01. Please desist from any further revert-warring, or you will be blocked from editing without further warning. dab (𒁳) 15:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for violating the three-revert rule at Suyab for a period of twenty-four hours. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. -- tariqabjotu 16:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: unblocked and reblocked for longer, given previous history of 3RR violations. Moreschi ^Talk 16:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked you for 96 hours for revert-warring and disruption at WP:AN/3RR. You've been blocked before for this kind of behaviour, and have been here long enough to know better. Please use the time off to consider that Wikipedia Is Most Definitely Not A Battleground. Thank you. Moreschi ^Talk 16:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR list produced by Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs)[1] are not vaild, 13:57 1st revert, 14:54 2nd revert, and 15:01 3rd revert, mainly on removing the cyrillic and some sources. The next four edits after Haukurth (talk · contribs)'s revert 14:12, 14:14, 14:14, 14:15, were basically adding the References section and shortern the notes section on the ground of his reverted edition, this was not a 4th revert. Eiorgiomugini 18:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption at WP:AN/3RR?? What does that meant? Does you admins allowed this sort of debating over the noticeboard? Do yourself a favour and check over the board on the section of What the three revert rule does not cover. It said:

Please also be aware that this page is not the place to bring disputes over content, or reports of abusive behaviour — we aren't referees, and have limited authority to deal with abusive editors.

Eiorgiomugini 16:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Next time, don't bother frivolously reporting users who have not violated any rules, and do not remove the comments of others for no good reason, as you did. Moreschi ^Talk 16:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Reporting users who have not violated any rules" Right, such as this and this involving with removing tags for no good reason, how about this and this by making personal attacks for no good reason, what about the WP:STALK here, here, here and here, what was this? personal vendetta? This guy has been making threat, which was certainly not the first time he had been making that[2], he seemed to get away with it by removing in a swift way. If that's was what you meant you certainly does made your point. Considered he had making unmotivated removal on information over the article without being disccussed first, and often done after with his reverting or edits over the past few days:

• 21:15, 26 May 2007/21:21, 26 May 2007 Discussed 6 minutes later
• 20:57, 28 May 2007/21:11, 28 May 2007 Discussed 15 minutes later
• 05:35, 29 May 2007 /Without discussed
• 09:04, 29 May 2007/09:09, 29 May 2007 Still under disccusion
• 09:21, 29 May 2007/09:24, 29 May 2007 Still under disccusion
• 09:35, 29 May 2007/Without discussed
• 10:26, 29 May 2007/10:27, 29 May 2007 Discussed 1 minute later and still being discussed
• 13:22, 29 May 2007/Without discussed; wholesales cut-and-paste slient reverting (like a few above) while making translation
• 08:41, 29 May 2007/Without discussed
• 10:49, 30 May 2007/Without discussed

Except:

• 09:52, 29 May 2007/09:45, 29 May 2007 Discussed 7 minutes earlier.

Making pathetic excuse and warning without any soild proof, good reason, or whatsoever, which is just absoluteness ridiculous. There is no way for you to prevent with this type of agitated editing war over the article secularly with him. Overall, I would not said that this entity had been a very earnestly editor for himself either. Eiorgiomugini 18:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: I blocked partly because of the 3RR violation that Ghirla initially reported you for, and partly because of your subsequent disruption. In future please do not indulge in this sort of conduct. Moreschi ^Talk 16:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what did you clarified anyway. I removed his comment for a reason over the WP:AN/3RR as he attempted to bring disputes/reports of abusive behaviour over to the content (stated explicitly on the content board itself) , this is certainly not a good reason for you to consider it as subsequent disruption, and certainly not a good reason for you blocked me for 4 days other than my previous history of 3RR violations. Eiorgiomugini 18:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please quit removing the unblock template or I'll just protect the page. If you want to go into more detail as to why you feel you should be unblocked, add another unblock template with a reason. However, don't just keep removing the original unblock request. -- tariqabjotu 16:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should be needed to read WP:USER:

Removal of warnings

[edit]

Policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. Deleted warnings can still be found in the page history.

Use of page protection for user pages

[edit]

As with article pages, user pages are occasionally the targets of vandalism, or, more rarely, edit wars. When edit wars or vandalism persist, the affected page should be protected from editing.

Most user page vandalism occurs in retaliation for an administrator's efforts to deal with vandalism. Administrators may protect their own user pages when appropriate, and are permitted to edit protected pages in user space. Sometimes a non-administrator's user page may be the target of vandalism. Such pages should be listed at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and may then be protected by an administrator.

Note that repeatedly inserting copyrighted content on your own user page after being notified that doing so violates our policy is also considered vandalism, and may result in it being protected.

Vandalism of talk pages is less common. Usually such vandalism should merely be reverted. Blocks should be used for repeated vandalism of talk pages, where policy permits. In rare cases, protection may be used but is considered a last resort given the importance of talk page discussions to the project.

Protected pages in user space should be unprotected as soon as practical.

I don't understand, do you have to block over my user page just because of the removal on some tag? "Please quit removing the unblock template or I'll just protect the page" Its been 2 days since the old tag, so I am removing it now. Since I had not been making any vandalism on my page. Your ground on protecting this page are not withstanding. Eiorgiomugini 18:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 31 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Suyab, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--ALoan (Talk) 10:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]