User talk:Orestes1984
Orestes1984 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I'm not going to let a little bit of a fracas get in the way of common sense. I think a few grounds need to be set including a permanent IBAN in place between myself and the other parties commonly involved in the disagreement that took place, particularly User:HiLo48. Lets face it that this is for the better of Wikipedia, as we're simply not going to agree, but I don't want to continue this nonsense any further than what it has been already. I will agree to stay on my side of the line and others involved should stay well away from me so as this does not happen again. Orestes1984 (talk) 03:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
There does not seem to be anything actionable in this request. You are demanding an interaction ban between yourself and some unknown list of editors which you have disagreed with in the past. This seems to indicate that you are aware your editing was problematic, but are unwilling to change and are indicating the disruptive behavior will occur again if others do not "stay away". This is a fundamentally a collaborative project; perhaps you should make a blog or some other website where you can have complete editorial control? I'm sorry, but given the request above, I see no reason to presume unblocking you would be productive. Kuru (talk) 14:55, 28 November 2014 (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.
Orestes1984 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Nothing could be further from the case, what I am saying is that the said user and a list of others do not work productively with me and it would be best based upon the LONG list of AN/Is regarding the matter that we simply do not interact particularly given the propensity for said users and others to stalk the edits that I have made in the past. In and of itself there is nothing wrong with stalking however given the propensity for it to occur it is more often than not hounding which led to this incident in the first place after a fracas and given that I don't want to jam up AN/I as you will see from the LONG list of recorded incidents I was simply suggesting what might be a good option. Nary a demand was made on my behalf only thoughts, and suggestions, I'm not sure how that comes across as a demand in any way shape or form, other than perhaps because I'm already in the "penalty box" but that's clearly not what I meant. If all of this is simply a matter of its all too hard, then OK, I can understand that, I'm just foreseeing the outcome of the facts and the propensity of other editor to assume bad faith and that all the sunshine and rainbows of wikipedia rarely work in reality. Orestes1984 (talk) 02:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Nick Thorne had a point; see WP:NOTTHEM. Your reaction to his suggestion does not inspire any confidence that the original issues would not recur as soon as you're unblocked. Huon (talk) 21:13, 8 December 2014 (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.
Orestes1984 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Sigh... if there was no social commentary here from smart arses asking "questions" which are instead inflammatory comments there would be no need for WP:NOTTHEM I'm really NOT sure why my talk page is so interesting to so many wiki users with their so called "questions" and "ideas"™ patent pending. I'm well aware of my own actions if you want a declarative statement of guilt, I was only making a suggestion that might well lead to a better editing environment and other peoples "questions" and "ideas"™ are not relevant here. THIS REALLY IS NOT AN OPEN FORUM FOR OTHERS TO VOICE THERE OPINIONS LIKE Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard OR OTHER PLACES! THIS IS A TALK PAGE. Orestes1984 (talk) 12:08 pm, Today (UTC+0)
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yunshui 雲水 13:03, 2 March 2015 (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.
Orestes1984 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have no long term history of disruptive editing, this was an argument that got out of hand which I attempted to address on the grounds of what is continuing to go on, on this page with repeated unhelpful contributions from outside participants. I know what I did, there isn't any need for it to be any more bleedingly obvious, but since certain members of the world out there can't use editing history to see for themselves:
In short, I got in a huff with certain idiots who assume something that could not be further from the truth is the truth which turned into a debate about truth finders and one in particular that was violating no original research consistently by using original research and the weight of me tooisms along with no original research to support their nonsense all the while invoking revert rules and discussion rules and the weight of other silly idiots with supposedly well vested interests that are actually conflicts of interest in another sport that would like sole usage of the name in Australia over a long debated topic to hold a consensus claim over matters which are and remain nothing further from reality and are somewhere in fairy land.
I suggested a simple thing would be not to interact with said idiots but those idiots have seen way to come here with their antagonistic bullshit in continue to edit my user space with their questions™ which are really antagonistic nonsense as if my talk page were somehow the administrators noticeboard or something similar where the point of view of all and sundry is somehow, or somewhat welcomed.... at least in practice for what you see there. I'm going to have to help these idiots out again by saying neither my life, nor my personal user space and talk page is really that interesting to require your so called contributions™
I am not sure what else is necessary to be said other than blocks are not meant to be punitive in nature and they are meant to if I could particularly bring to highlight point 3 as I feel it is being consistently ignored, to lead to an encouragement of more productive, congenial editing style within community norms. I don't see how this continuous rejection of my case helps this cause even in the slightest sense unless the average administrator here knows something I don't know.
In any case if that wasn't bleedingly obvious the continued questions™ (patent pending) which are really just platforms for their personal views have not been helpful either in establishing anything, let alone anything related to the above and there would be no need for not talking about them if the idiots involved on the sidelines would stay away from my talk page and respect Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. The last series of supposed questions™ clearly violated NPA and were nothing more than a diatribe about why I should not be editing here.
I have no more time for this stupidity, or for questions which are really just antagonistic bullshit. I know full well what I did and what led to this situation and if you spend enough time reading through my editing history you will also, I don't feel any need or compulsion to explain what can already be read by all and sundry anyway and my terse nature regarding this is just an issue with being fed up with this ridiculous process, it has nothing to do with my editing style and should not be judged as such.
On the point of being a disruptive editor, I don't believe this is necessarily the case and instead its a matter of being fed up with certain users and their antics which led to a situation that is clearly highlighted in the original block by the moderator who sanctioned it, this does not require further elaboration.
Now if those in the negative would leave well enough alone, and those in the affirmative would bother to give me another chance I don't feel there would be any more need for any of this silly nonsense. Orestes1984 (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
That isn't a persuasive unblock request, more of a rant. In this context, I'm declining your request to be unblocked. PhilKnight (talk) 17:48, 7 March 2015 (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.
- Declined unblock requests may not be removed
as long as the sanctions are still active, according to WP:BLANKING. Favonian (talk) 10:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Orestes1984 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The current block is beyond the realms of pointless which is one of the reasons why I was blocked in the first place, given how long ago it occurred it's time to let it go and realise what I did and what well happened to lead to this is in the past and is something for which I'm currently not needed to be blocked for some good faith would be appreciated Orestes1984 (talk) 10:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
It would appear that nothing has changed in your perception of the situation. Your talk page access has been revoked (again), and you are referred to WP:UTRS in case you want to make further requests. Favonian (talk) 10:52, 21 May 2015 (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.
Europe 10,000 Challenge invite[edit]
Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Fair Use in Australia discussion[edit]
As an Australian Wikipedian, your opinion is sought on a proposal to advocate for the introduction of Fair Use into Australian copyright law. The discussion is taking place at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board, please read the proposal and comment there. MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
This message has been automatically sent to all users in Category:Australian Wikipedians. If you do not wish to receive further messages like this, please either remove your user page from this category, or add yourself to Category:Opted-out of message delivery
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!