Flueras (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I should be unblocked right now.
Decline reason:
No, why? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:22, 5 June 2008 (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.
Welcome!
Hello, Flueras, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Ultraexactzz
editI have replied on my talk page. Best, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you. That problem-user is still free to make disruptive edits even if he was just unblocked.Flueras (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well, no, not really - disruption is disruption. But, looking over a few (not all) of the editor's last few contributions, I'm not seeing anything patently disruptive. I do see edits in contentious areas, where there will obviously be some disagreement, but that's not in itself disruptive, and concerns about those edits should probably be brought to those talk pages. Do you have any diffs of particular edits that are disruptive? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- To say Moldavian instead of Moldovan it's against the people from Moldova. Moldopodo, as he's russian wants to impose it's Russian POV by changing the name. Flueras (talk) 18:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- That's the thing, though. As far as I can tell, he did not change the name, but rather created an article under that name. If it's the wrong name, it could be moved or - now that an article at the "Moldovan" version is in place - redirected. Note also that he has not edited the article in close to an hour, despite the fact that the article is currently a redirect; this would indicate either that he concedes the fact that the name may be better as Moldovan, or that he intends to discuss the matter before editing the article further. Either way, he's acting properly within the bounds of the arbitration case you cite. I'll also add that the Arbitration Enforcement discussion you cite below was resolved three days ago with a two day block, which was served and has expired, and so it is not directly relevant to this article or issue. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- To say Moldavian instead of Moldovan it's against the people from Moldova. Moldopodo, as he's russian wants to impose it's Russian POV by changing the name. Flueras (talk) 18:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Please see this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moldova&diff=prev&oldid=217301591 also. The way he inserts his POV again and again. Just today..Not to mention the way he, as a russian which hates NATO, wants that Moldova never to join NATO. See his edits. Flueras (talk) 18:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- I note also that you reverted his edits less than an hour later, and that he did not re-revert your revert, despite the fact that he continued to edit. His edits may or may not be neutral, but characterizing his edits as biased because of his national origin is pretty close to a personal attack; please restrict your criticism to the edits and their flaws, not to the editor. As a new editor, you may be unaware - Arbitration remedies such as the Digwuren case can be applied to any editor, including you or I. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well, no, not really - disruption is disruption. But, looking over a few (not all) of the editor's last few contributions, I'm not seeing anything patently disruptive. I do see edits in contentious areas, where there will obviously be some disagreement, but that's not in itself disruptive, and concerns about those edits should probably be brought to those talk pages. Do you have any diffs of particular edits that are disruptive? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Moldopodo --Flueras (talk) 18:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)