User talk:Tmhm

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 2010[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one month for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

—Kww(talk) 18:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Tmhm (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have made 2 edits that are perfectly documented, one by UN document, one by relevant links. I do not know why I am considered engaging in edit warring and not those who reverted my edit without arguement. This is very disappointing how some WP admins favours one side of views and consider everything else vandalism. I would like my block to be reviewed and my permissions reinstated. Thanks.

Decline reason:

I would expect somebody fresh off of a two-week block for edit warring to be very careful not to somuch as appear to be edit warring. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Tmhm (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have made 2 edits that are perfectly documented, one by UN document, one by relevant links. I do not know why I am considered engaging in edit warring and not those who reverted my edit without arguement. This is very disappointing how some WP admins favours one side of views and consider everything else vandalism. I would like my block to be reviewed and my permissions reinstated. Thanks.

Decline reason:

Looking at your editing history, I'd say this block is more for your move-warring, which is exponentially more disruptive than normal edit warring. This request does not really establish why you should be unblocked. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Tmhm (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

In response to Hersfold; if you check the history of that page, I only reverted when editors who belong to one side of the conflict(Greek editors - Athenean & Cplakidas) came and reverted the edit because they simply prefer the current Greek POV pushed state of the article better. I did not revert when Tbhotch reverted it but asked him why on his talk page. This was discussed in the talk page of the article thoroughly as well; I provided unarguable documents from the United Nations website. Just because there are more Greek people on English WP that shouldn't mean Greek POV must be applied. This is eactly what is happening here. Hence I would like my block lifted please. Thanks.

Decline reason:

A response of "fuck you" is more than enough reason to leave you blocked. As you say you choose to leave wikipedia, even more reason not to bother unblocking. Accounts cannot be deleted though--you can simply go away if you choose. DMacks (talk) 05:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

You changed "Germans" to "Turks in Germany" on Mesut Özil 4 times in less than 24 hours, so that breaks the WP:3RR rule, and you were warned while doing that. Pages are constructed by consensus, if other editors do not agree with your edits, you cannot just ignore them and keep blindly putting them back - that is edit warring. Such edits must be discussed on the talk page until a consensus is obtained or you go for dispute resolution or invite other editors to comment using the Article's Project page (if there is one).  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Walter_Görlitz changed the page 4 times in less than 24 hours too, can you tell me why he is not blocked if 3RR is the case here? How come I am considered violating the 3RR rule and not him? Tmhm (talk) 01:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't block for edit warring often. You were blocked because you were edit warring everywhere you edited, with no sign of listening to anyone about anything. The Mesut Özil is a good example: we don't mention ethnicity in leads as a general rule, and you wouldn't discuss it, you simply continually reinserted it. —Kww(talk) 02:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I discussed it in the talk page for all day, check it. How long can I discuss it with someone who implies "Turks killed Armenians" on a page about a footballer? - the same guy who made the 4 revert btw. And about the ethnicity, it is mentioned if it is relevant to subject's notability. In Mesut's case, his ethnicity raised political awareness of German's treatment of minorities as well as his non-Germanic name brought immediate attention as to where his roots belong, consequently contributing to his notability. I discussed all these in the talk page and provided relevant reference. I also showed the other examples as Dennis Aogo or Serdar Tasci or Zinedine Zidane or Zlatan Ibrahimović or Kemal Izzet whose ethnicity is mentioned when relevant, I can show 100 more, this is very common in WP when relevant and I told all these in the talk page. The editor with the German name simply pushed to keep it "German" only without a real arguement. He made 4 reverts and remains unblocked. So this block was a quick judgement, please reconsider it. Tmhm (talk) 03:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The change was opposed by five editors and supported by none. Didn't that make you stop and think?—Kww(talk) 03:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Check these too Kemal Izzet or Fredi Bobic or Oliver Neuville or Emmanuel Olisadebe or Eren Derdiyok or Émile_Mpenza or Ante Jazić or Veli Kavlak or Steve Ogrizovic or Gökhan Inler or Hakan Yakin John Lukic or Miklos Molnar or Ibrahim Ba or Mehmet Scholl or John Carew or Yasin Pehlivan or Eusébio or Kubilay Türkyilmaz or Ricardo Cabanas or Stefan Selakovic. Don't you think there is a merit to the case? I was going on with the discussion when I was banned but Walter Görlitz kept reverting my edit obsessively. Don't you think someone implying "Turks killed Armenians" in a footballers talk page is extremely inappropriate? I shall seek consensus before proceeding with the edit but if you leave me blocked while the other party is not, I do not think it will be fair. You are a reasonable person and I hope you will consider lifting the block. I will pay more attention on the editing before discussion is over. Tmhm (talk) 04:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those are all MOS:BIO violations. I'll go take care of them. I won't unblock you, but the request is still open. You might be able to convince someone else to.—Kww(talk) 04:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close the block please then. If you have access please delete my account too because I see no reason to be back if this is how admins favour certain POV. If you need a reason for that, sorry but here - "Fuck you". Thanks Tmhm (talk) 04:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits[edit]

Hmmm...It seems that you were a little impatient ?

The dispute over the renaming of the Turkish Invasion of Cyprus article has taken a little sad turn and you have managed to get yourself blocked and, as it stands, I think you have probably destroyed any credibility you had for a while.

I suggest you use the time, if you are reading this page anyway, to calm down and think about how you are going to proceed if you decide to return.

THings do not always get done as quickly as we like, patience is a very important practice. Often we can lose our tempers and that is why we have the three revert rule as well as numerous procedures for resolving arguments and conflicts.

These things take time though. It does not matter if it takes a few months to get a discussion to work through the arguing and shouting. There was no need for you to start changing the wording in the article especially as you know there is a discussion going on about the wording of the article title and the next steps are not going to be taken now as you have managed to get blocked.

I hope that once you return you can learn to put aside your impatience and work with those around your topics of interest to try and get things changed even if it is a little slower than you wish for. AS you can see from the comments above you were right about the biographies being wrong, you just chose to go about it the wrong way!

You need to learn to take these disputes to further levels of resolution before revert wars start. If I have reverted or undone an edit and the person insists on reverting again I do not bother with reverting - I simply take the time to go to the next stage and let someone else decide whether I am right or not.

DO not forget that once other people have seen that you are right the changes you have asked for will be made and they are permanent - who cares if it is wrong for another week or month when, once fixed, it will remain fixed for years ??

The truth of the matter on the Cyprus page is that the UN calls it an intervention, the Turks call it "peace movement" and the Greeks "invasion" - I was giving everyone time to think about calling it "Turkish intervention and invasion of Cyprus" as a compromise before mvoing to the next stage of dispute resolution. The next would be requested page moves as that is the place where these difficult decisions are made.

Anyway I hope that you can calm down and your leaving is not a permanent thing...Chaosdruid (talk) 19:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tmhm&oldid=1075719109"