User talk:Art&Design3000
Welcome!
|
October 2014[edit]
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Galerie Gmurzynska. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Nat Gertler (talk) 22:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello Nat Gertler (talk) thanks a lot for your message. I am an independent researcher focussed on art and design as well as their intersections with social developments. The wikipedia page of Galerie Gmurzynska is edited by Grammophone (talk) for the sole purpose of discrediting the work of the gallery and some people personally. In all cases and sources that are used by Grammophone (talk) state also the presumption of innocence, what means that this unproven and often quite subjective information is not to be entered into an encyclopedia. Thank you Art&Design3000 (talk) 08:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Your attempt to delete the page through use of WP:PROD has been overruled as procedurally incorrect, and it seems clear that such a PROD would not fly even if you had access to editing the page. If you wish to see the page gone, you are more likely to succeed if you use the Articles for Deletion procedure (AFD) once editing is reenabled. When using that process, state your case for deletion in terms of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; that's what the editor making the final decision will be looking for. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Art&Design3000 reported by User:NatGertler (Result: ). Thank you. Nat Gertler (talk) 13:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Edit warring at Galerie Gmurzynska[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
The full report is at this AN3 complaint (permalink). If you don't change your approach, there is a risk that you may be indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Hi EdJohnston (talk), the encyclopaedic neutrality and the WP:NPV were consistently violated and the article has to be improved again to encyclopaedic standards, thus I was and am working on it. However I see the point not to edit the page back and forth and reach a consensus, so that it is beneficial for the community and the article.Art&Design3000 (talk) 11:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
October 2014[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 00:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Art&Design3000 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Dear Bbb23 (talk), I request to remove my block, because I was involved in editing the article according to WP:NPOV, I moved the allegations that are supported by some sources in a controversies and legal issues section and removed all directly cited material that have unproven accusations WP:VERIFICATION. Furthermore, I tried to consolidate the article as an encyclopaedic entry that keeps neutrality stating some key facts of the gallery's history as well as touching base on current and recent controversies. The current version is a deliberate attempt to construe the wikipedia entry as a defamation against living persons WP:BLP. Also the article is completely biased focusing mostly on three controversies WP:COAT. Thus, I request to remove my block as I was also involved in the discussion of the talk page and incorporated the edits of Grammophone (talk) int othe article. Art&Design3000 (talk) 09:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Nonetheless, you were edit warring, and considering this is your second block, 7 days is a reasonable enough duration. PhilKnight (talk) 12:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
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.
Sockpuppet investigation[edit]
Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Art&Design3000, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.
Nat Gertler (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- Please note that because you were found to be using multiple accounts and continued to edit while blocked, I have extended your block to 2 weeks. Mike V • Talk 17:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- Dear Mike V • Talk, I have not used any other accounts myself. And I have not been editing anything while blocked. Nevertheless, I accept your conclusion even though it does not make sense, as AndemW3 was created even before I had my account, already for longer than a year. Secondly, I do not know why user W.Adorno shall be me, as this account has never edited anything related to the edit warring case or other pages I used to work on. Art&Design3000 (talk) 11:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- What you say is blatantly false on its face. First, the Art account was created on September 24, 2013, whereas the Andemw3 account was created on May 26, 2014. Apparently, you don't even know when you created these accounts. Second, all three accounts have been confirmed as being the same person with technical evidence. You're actually fortunate that you were blocked for only one more week for socking. If I had been the one making the decision, it would have been longer.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- I do not know because I do not created these different accounts. I use my computer mostly in a public institution with several other people, all having the same IP. Furthermore, I find it interesting that technical evidence confirm truths; probably they confirm a certain kind of possible truth but it does not have to necessarily correspond to reality, as I did not use these or any other accounts besides the Art&Design one. I am okay with the block because of edit warring and I am also ok with the extension (even if it would be longer), because I am tired of these accusations and this deconstructive behavior of all parties on the article. For me it is just about the principle, that I am not cowardly using three accounts for editing the article. And I am sure that I did not use these accounts, because very simple I did not do that, what is for me more sufficient and valuable as confirmation than the technical evidence being available for you. Art&Design3000 (talk) 23:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- What you say is blatantly false on its face. First, the Art account was created on September 24, 2013, whereas the Andemw3 account was created on May 26, 2014. Apparently, you don't even know when you created these accounts. Second, all three accounts have been confirmed as being the same person with technical evidence. You're actually fortunate that you were blocked for only one more week for socking. If I had been the one making the decision, it would have been longer.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- Dear Mike V • Talk, I have not used any other accounts myself. And I have not been editing anything while blocked. Nevertheless, I accept your conclusion even though it does not make sense, as AndemW3 was created even before I had my account, already for longer than a year. Secondly, I do not know why user W.Adorno shall be me, as this account has never edited anything related to the edit warring case or other pages I used to work on. Art&Design3000 (talk) 11:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)