User talk:Historian35

Thanks.[edit]

Thank you for removing content from Neo-Nazism. I happened to need that imformation for my research on a school project. Also, allow me to suggest that you stop calling everybody "ignorant". Ultimateria (talk) 03:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply notice[edit]

Hi Historian35, I've replied to your post on Talk:Independent State of Croatia#Very bad article [1]. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You've been blocked as a likely sock of User:Velebit. I don't know if you've been told this before but templates should only be added to articles if the article itself is linked in the template. In the case of Template:The Holocaust, it's not meant to be added to every person involved with the Axis powers, but on the pages linked within the template. Spellcast (talk) 21:05, 26 September 2009 (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).

Historian35 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

So, what right this administrator has to say it so? (You've been blocked as a likely sock . Likely - by someones opinion - means guilty?!)I am not anybody's sock nor the administrator's interpretation of the template is an editorial rule, nor it constitutes any break of the existing editorial rules implying an indefinite block. This is just a shameless way to exercise censorship justifying it by a primitive disqualification as the one above. Especially - "it's not meant to be added to every person involved with the Axis powers" is a wrong conclusion due to the fat that the Holocaust template is added to the biographies of those who effecively contributed to the extermination of a great number of people.--Historian35 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I agree that you are likely a sock of Purger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) / Velebit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Sandstein 22:11, 26 September 2009 (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).

Historian35 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Due to the fact that the reviewer of my request responded just a minute after my unblock request submission, which is not enough to review all my contributions seriously - I am asking another administrator to pay attention to this apparently abusive use of the adminship. 'I agree that you are likely a sock of' cannot be a reason for declining my request

Decline reason:

Whatever or whoever you are, you are most definitely a disruptive editor. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:52, 26 September 2009 (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).

Historian35 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am a constructive and a knowledgeable editor. Disqualifications as the one above are baseless. All my edits are strictly based on the supplied or on the existing references. Inventing a new guilt and not being able to defend the old accusations - is just a proof that a group of people (editors+adminitrators) are harassing the other contributors. Just go to the suspected socks of Velebit - you'll find the IP addresses all around the US marked as the suspicious ones. Does in this country (USA) the suspicion equals to the guilt? Please stop this abusive group - bear in mind that in the Ante Pavelic talk page the user DIRECTOR explicitly threathened blocking me just for disagreeing with him/her. The block came not after even reporting any violation of the code of conduct or of the Wikipedia's editorial rules

Decline reason:

Because of your abuse of the unblock process, I am locking down the talk page. MuZemike 23:46, 26 September 2009 (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.