User talk:Carpaticus/Archive

Should I ask for a Checkuser? Are you the IP revert warring? Squash Racket (talk) 05:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.Squash Racket (talk) 05:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I have just created my account to avoid creating confusion.

My IP address: 212.17.85.18 IP country: Austria IP Address state: Wien IP Address city: Vienna

Added facts? Would you also add some references? Squash Racket (talk) 10:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

As you didn't give explanation for the deletion of the criticism of this fringe theory I ask you not to delete it again. Thank you. Squash Racket (talk) 10:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

3rr block
Hello. You have been blocked for 12 hours due to a breach of the three revert rule. Please be more careful in the future. Thank you. Regards, El_C 15:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, the real reason of my 3RR is linked with the behavior of the user Squash Racket: Refusal to accept compromise (NPOV) and his/her weird sense of quoting original sources.


 * Also: comments like that won't get you far here.
 * NPOV means keeping the fringe theory AND its criticism. Refusal to accept compromise means insisting on Romanian POV as the only "truth". Not once did I delete the theory itself though I don't believe it's true. Just some clarification. Squash Racket (talk) 03:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * you cannot delete a theory that is sustained by NEUTRAL sources, written by authors that are not Hungarians, neither Romanians. But you try to bring false arguments and to fabricate texts that you extract from various books and then you "help" them to lose their original meaning. Thus you want to creat some "trustful" material in order to sustain your theory. This is not compromise and NPOV at all!
 * Please sign your comments with the four tildes: ~ . OK? Squash Racket (talk) 05:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I answered you at Talk:Transylvania, this discussion belongs there. The kind of language you allow yourself is a bit too harsh, please tone it down. Thank you. Squash Racket (talk) 05:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, once again: please sign your comments with the four tildes: ~ . Squash Racket (talk) 06:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I will sign my comments, THX Carpaticus

Would you please explain why you added that comment about "my language"? Next question: are you willing to go into mediation about the problem? Squash Racket (talk) 04:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, let's talk on the discussion page of the subject, thank you. Carpaticus, 5:51, 4 August 2008
 * Then would you give valid reasons for your removal? Squash Racket (talk) 04:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course, although I told you many times before, I do not agree the way you extracted that text and put it apart from its original sense in order to discredit a theory sustained by relevant independent sources Carpaticus 05:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I cited the reference almost word by word (after you deleted the version that can't be considered copyright infringement). The fringe theory is based on a manuscript written two centuries after the alleged events. Criticism is valid. Please comment on the talk page of the article. Squash Racket (talk) 06:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Block, contd.
I'm disappointed —and rather surprised— to learn that you continued reverting as soon as the block expired. I am re-blocking you for 24 hours and I expect you not to revert again once this block, too, expires (wait at least 24 hours; use the talk page). El_C 11:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please let me know how should I settle the editing conflict with Squash Racket (talk) since he reverted the same page more than 3 times/day. Because of this reason the Transylvania page was blocked by PeaceNT (talk). Since then I started to settle the editing conflict on the discussion page. If I am not allowed to continue the dialogue, how this editing conflict should be solved?

I made two reverts in 24 hours, not "more than 3 times/day". And I reverted relevant, English language secondary source published by a university press that had been deleted by Carpaticus. Please check the page history before making false statements again. Adding new information without reverting another editor's edit is not a revert, please don't count those. Squash Racket (talk) 11:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC) Please examine how the citation templates work, it's not easy to fix the mess you created there. Squash Racket (talk) 13:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Please review this page about comment attribution. Removing those passages again as soon as you returned from being blocked for doing just that, is questionable. That has nothing to do with using the discussion page. I have undid the protection of the page, because it was undertaken, seemingly, without knowledge of your re-reverting as soon as you returned from a 3RR block. If you have evidence that other parties also breached 3RR, recently, you may submit a 3RR report here and myself or another admin will try to review it, but please follow the format stipulated at WP:AN3 (I, at least, just don't have the time to do that leg work for you). El_C 11:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

3RR
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.. This was your third revert. Also read WP:VAN. Squash Racket (talk) 13:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

3RR
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.. This was your third revert. Also read WP:VAN. Squash Racket (talk) 13:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)