User talk:ClockworkOrange

Welcome, ClockworkOrange!

Hello, ClockworkOrange, and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm Redvers, one of the thousands of editors here at Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

The five pillars of Wikipedia

How to edit a page

Help pages

Tutorial

How to write a great article

Manual of Style

Fun stuff...

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

but... "fair use" copyright images are not allowed on user pages and the one you have chosen had to be removed. Sorry. ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

tnx ClockworkOrange 19:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Declaring copyrighted stills from a movie to be PD-self doesn't actually make them public domain or your own work. They remain the copyright of the distributor of the work in question. The only images you can use on Wikipedia userpages are images that have no copyright attached to them in the first place - public domain or copyright-released images where the original copyright holder her/himself has released the copyright. Sorry. ➨ ЯEDVERS 21:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually I did modified this photo with Photoshop ClockworkOrange 15:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright images altered by others don't become free of copyright and don't gain the copyright of the alterer (although the alterations do attract such copyright... but can't be used without permission of the original copyright holder). Copyright is a subject that many people on Wikipedia find difficult, but it's really quite simple. The full policy is at WP:COPYRIGHT, but, in a nutshell, the policy is "don't use work created by others without having full permission". Happy editing! ➨ ЯEDVERS 21:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blind reverts[edit]

Please do not make blind unexplained reverts with uninformative edit summeries (like "POV"), as you did here [1]. If somebody makes a decently sourced, factual-sounding, good-faith addition to an article, as Alaexis did, then if you disagree with it you go first to the talk page and discuss. So, what's wrong about that edit? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not revert any sourced info! That is definitely not an encyclopedic language - "central authority to declare Moldovan the state language, to adopt Latin alphabet and to recognise the shared identity of the Romanian". That is a POV. Blatant Not sourced POV. [[2]] ClockworkOrange 19:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Of course it's POV. It's the POV being ascribed to the organisations that were making those demands. Did you understand the sentence as implying a factual claim by Wikipedia? Then I think you simply didn't understand the English right. (Besides, I'm not sure I understand what exactly you find offensive about the phrase "shared identity". -- But anyway, this is exactly why you are required to discuss before reverting. On the talk page. Stating precisely what it is that you don't like about his edit. And waiting for the other person to respond. Before you revert. Because then such misunderstandings can be cleared up and the wording can be optimised by consensus, once any such problems have been pointed out. This is a collaborative project, not a battlefield. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

I've blocked you for 24h for re-kindling the revert wars on Transnistria, making several uncooperative reverts with no discussion on the talk page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much you are so kind to me. ClockworkOrange 21:48, 29 October 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am sorry but this is a mistake i am not a Banapart or evil Alex. I wonted to write couple of article. It is a mistake. User Alexis removed my edits and you block me. I dont know any of this persons nor Banapart nor evil Alex. My name is Bogdan i am from Ovidiopol (Ukraine). It is not faraway from Transnistria. I was in Tiraspol couple of times. That is why i knew about Transnistria. That is why i wrote about Transnistria. What do you wont me to write about Electronics - I knew nothing about that. It is wrong i am i am not a Banapart or evil Alex. It is a mistake. Could anyone help me? thanks

Decline reason:

Checkuser and edit history both seem to confirm that you have edited under another username; please go through your original username if you wish to be unblocked. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:13, 31 October 2007 (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.

I dont have any others user names. ClockworkOrange is my original name. in Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bonaparte says: Unrelated to Bonaparte, Likely EvilAlex. I dont know any one of them. What similarity in behaviour? It is a mistake. Please unblock me. ClockworkOrange 15:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Notice that my 'note below' was actually me declining a first request for unblock; this user changed my edits to misrepresent how many times the unblock request had been review. User:ClockworkOrange, misrepresenting other users is the sort of thing that will lead to your talk page being protected so that you cannot edit it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody blocked me before, i dont know how to post unblock request. I didnt delete your desision, i just moved it down, so that i could reply. I didnt know that i could post many unblock requests. I simply didnt know. Now i see your attitude towards me: this user changed my edits to misrepresent - guilty without a court hearing. They block me by mistacke there is an error. I AM INNOCENT. Please unblock me. ClockworkOrange 17:59, 31 October 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am sorry but this is a mistake i am not a Banapart or evil Alex. I wonted to write couple of article. It is a mistake. User Alexis removed my edits and you block me. I dont know any of this persons nor Banapart nor evil Alex. My name is Bogdan i am from Ovidiopol (Ukraine). It is not faraway from Transnistria. I was in Tiraspol couple of times. That is why i knew about Transnistria. That is why i wrote about Transnistria. What do you wont me to write about Electronics - I knew nothing about that. It is wrong i am i am not a Banapart or evil Alex. It is a mistake. Could anyone help me? thanks

I dont have any others user names. ClockworkOrange is my original name. in Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bonaparte says: Unrelated to Bonaparte, Likely EvilAlex. I dont know any one of them. What similarity in behaviour? It is a mistake. Please unblock me. ClockworkOrange 15:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

As per FisherQueen's note below. In the unlikely case that you really are unrelated, you are certainly a single-purpose account engaging in edit wars and could be blocked for that reason anyway. — Yamla 17:30, 31 October 2007 (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.

Yes i am unrelated! I dont know Banapart or evil Alex. I didnt even heard about them till today. I totaly respect wikipedian rules. I dont even have a single 3RR bracke. I like politics i write about Moldova, Transnistria, Tiraspol, CIS election observation missions‎. How can it be a single-purpose account? There is a mistake you mixed me with somebody else. ClockworkOrange 17:59, 31 October 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

Please help me i have been wrongly accused of being a suckpupet of EvilAlex, but i am not. What should i do? Please help me. I newer broke single wikipedian rule. But they banned me indefenetely!!!!

Decline reason:

Per Fisherqueen and Yamla, even if you are not a sock, your edit warring warrants it — Rlevse • Talk • 19:24, 31 October 2007 (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.

What edit woring i dont even have a single 3RR breach. ClockworkOrange 19:43, 31 October 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

What should i do? Please help me. I newer broke single wikipedian rule. But they banned me indefenetely! I dont even have a single 3RR breach. It is a mistake!

Decline reason:

See above please. The CU case said you were unrelated to Bonaparte, but related to EvilAlex, meaning you're a sock of EvilAlex. — Kwsn (Ni!) 19:38, 1 November 2007 (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.