User talk:Art&Design3000

October 2014
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Galerie Gmurzynska. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Nat Gertler (talk) 22:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Nat Gertler (talk) thanks a lot for your message. I am an independent researcher focussed on art and design as well as their intersections with social developments. The wikipedia page of Galerie Gmurzynska is edited by Grammophone (talk) for the sole purpose of discrediting the work of the gallery and some people personally. In all cases and sources that are used by Grammophone (talk) state also the presumption of innocence, what means that this unproven and often quite subjective information is not to be entered into an encyclopedia. Thank you Art&Design3000 (talk) 08:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Your attempt to delete the page through use of WP:PROD has been overruled as procedurally incorrect, and it seems clear that such a PROD would not fly even if you had access to editing the page. If you wish to see the page gone, you are more likely to succeed if you use the Articles for Deletion procedure (AFD) once editing is reenabled. When using that process, state your case for deletion in terms of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; that's what the editor making the final decision will be looking for. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Nat Gertler (talk) 13:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring at Galerie Gmurzynska
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for edit warring, as you did at Galerie Gmurzynska. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. The full report is at this AN3 complaint (permalink). If you don't change your approach, there is a risk that you may be indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi EdJohnston (talk), the encyclopaedic neutrality and the WP:NPV were consistently violated and the article has to be improved again to encyclopaedic standards, thus I was and am working on it. However I see the point not to edit the page back and forth and reach a consensus, so that it is beneficial for the community and the article.Art&#38;Design3000 (talk) 11:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014
You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for resumption of edit warring at Galerie Gmurzynska. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 00:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation
Nat Gertler (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Please note that because you were found to be using multiple accounts and continued to edit while blocked, I have extended your block to 2 weeks. Mike V  •  Talk  17:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Dear Mike V  •  Talk, I have not used any other accounts myself. And I have not been editing anything while blocked. Nevertheless, I accept your conclusion even though it does not make sense, as AndemW3 was created even before I had my account, already for longer than a year. Secondly, I do not know why user W.Adorno shall be me, as this account has never edited anything related to the edit warring case or other pages I used to work on. Art&#38;Design3000 (talk) 11:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What you say is blatantly false on its face. First, the Art account was created on September 24, 2013, whereas the Andemw3 account was created on May 26, 2014. Apparently, you don't even know when you created these accounts. Second, all three accounts have been confirmed as being the same person with technical evidence. You're actually fortunate that you were blocked for only one more week for socking. If I had been the one making the decision, it would have been longer.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not know because I do not created these different accounts. I use my computer mostly in a public institution with several other people, all having the same IP. Furthermore, I find it interesting that technical evidence confirm truths; probably they confirm a certain kind of possible truth but it does not have to necessarily correspond to reality, as I did not use these or any other accounts besides the Art&Design one. I am okay with the block because of edit warring and I am also ok with the extension (even if it would be longer), because I am tired of these accusations and this deconstructive behavior of all parties on the article. For me it is just about the principle, that I am not cowardly using three accounts for editing the article. And I am sure that I did not use these accounts, because very simple I did not do that, what is for me more sufficient and valuable as confirmation than the technical evidence being available for you. Art&#38;Design3000 (talk) 23:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)