User talk:Petrobozo

June 2020

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Marly Almir Leka, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ◢   Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 15:51, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Marly Almir Leka. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion, which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. TheImaCow (talk) 15:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have not created the page. I have contested the speedy deletion and as per instructions in the deletion header "If this article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice", I've removed the header. Why should I not remove it ?

Cause you have no idea whether it's similar to the first iteration or not. It's also fairly obvious you're abusing multiple accounts. Praxidicae (talk) 15:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reading accusations without proper factual information. Do you care to explain?

Care to explain why you just joined a few moments ago to repeatedly remove a tag on an article that was previously written by someone known for socking? :) Praxidicae (talk) 16:02, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Am I not allowed to join at the time I feel adapt and make edits to topics I feel relevant ? Ah and also, I don't personally know anyone known for socking. (interesting terminology :) ).

Tell me, if you've not edited before, how do you know it's not sufficiently identical to the first one that was deleted via discussion? That's the entire crux of your argument, isn't it? Praxidicae (talk) 16:06, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My judgment was based on the actual articles provided on the page. The latest version of the page seemed to me in line with the criteria. Maybe older versions I am not aware of were not respecting the criteria. This one had good articles, more than many other pages that are still up and running. How is that possible ?

And on the other hand you are responding me in a very aggressive way without even knowing me nor reading or stoping for a minute to see my explanation. I get you are in a position to do whatever you like, but jumping to conclusions about my activity on wikipedia is nonesense. Not even the benefit of the doubt. It is shocking.

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.