User talk:Defetistul

Welcome
Thanks for the welcome message! --Defetistul (talk) 02:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking your time to answer me, Anthony, even if you addressed me in third-person (which is considered rude). I respect your decission, but I also disagree with your reasoning; and that's because you acted on assumption and not on facts. In my posts, I never admitted of being a sockpuppet. The scenarios that I drew up were merely hypothetical; and if you will carefully read Dahn's posts, even the one below this thread, he will say that I probably am a certain person, but the doubt that he leaves in his message means that, at least in the eyes of the Roman Law, that I am not guilty beyond doubt. Of course, Wikipedia is not that noble so to attempt to be precise in its executions. Heck, even I believe that I'm a sockpuppet, but not even this kind of statement can count as proof (I could be mentally unstable). This is the reason why Dahn refused to be an admin on Wikipedia. Dahn can't live with the thought of him exercising influence on others and not be a philosopher king. And a philosopher king on Wikipedia, no one can ever be. What was that, Anthony? Oh, an assassin? Yes, it's highly possible that Wikipedia admins should hold that title. Anthony, your second message is not only rude, but unreasonble as well. You sound like a brute when you give me an ultimatum of either following the guidelines (which, I believe, I did) or have this talkpage blocked from editing. As you must know, this account was given an indefinitely block, which means that to try and have it unblocked would be the greatest affair that one can invest in, as far as concerning the status of this account; and if I were to fail in this endeavour, then having this talkpage blocked from editing would be no calamity. Anthony, you must be a modern man and I must've bored you with this 'nonsense' talk, so before you block this talkpage and allow the firebird to lay its egg in Arabia, so that I can be ressurected, I have one last inquiry to you that I believe is both relevant and important to the Wikipedia project. If one is indeed a sockpuppet, a thief, a pimp or whatever else that would lead to instant stigmatization in a society that follows conventional ways--and if this person notices an inaccuracy in an article, are there any steps that this individual could take, which would be in accordance with the laws of Wikipedia, to have it rectified? Thanks again for taking your time, Anthony; and perhaps our paths will cross again. :) --Defetistul (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * To cut out the Gordian knot that "Defetistul" is tying over here, I'll let admins note the following: this is most likely the new account of User:Anittas, who was indeffed a while back for very similar behavior. In addition to the constant spamming I get from him on my Romanian wikipedia talkpage (which is a giveaway, particularly since he started spamming me here once I ignored him there), there are other, even more concrete, clues, including ones that I have allowed myself to post here. Whether or not the stalking is a blockable offense (I won't comment on that, as I'm considered an involved party), I think that socking for a permablocked account is and will be. Dahn (talk) 16:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Dahn, I apologize for the late reply. I'm on a short vacation and there are some distractions around here, but things should get back to normal in less than a week. Until then, please lend your ear to this. :) --Defetistul (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "for very similar behavior" -- and what kind of behavior is this? What's the diagnosis? --Defetistul (talk) 11:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Purely for the record, given that I see no reason to retract my earlier refusal, I will point out that comments relating to an unblock request, which are available to the community at large, are usually framed in the third person: and as I have posted only one comment to this account, where are you seeing a second one from me?--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 22:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi there. Sorry for the late reply. I've been kind of busy lately and the only Wikipedia activity I've afforded to invest in was made under my two other sockpuppet accounts (Redroom2 and another one whose name and password I have forgotten). You're right, you only posted one message. I suppose I got a bit confused, thinking that the message that belongs to the blocking box and which addresses the user in second person was posted by you, whereas you in fact addressed me in third person. It should be the other way around, me thinks. You're also right when you say that the content dispute on that article is not relevant to my sockpupptery accusations, yet that's what lead to this accotung getting blocked. I would still like for you to answer me this: "if one is indeed a sockpuppet, a thief, a pimp or whatever else that would lead to instant stigmatization in a society that follows conventional ways--and if this person notices an inaccuracy in an article, are there any steps that this individual could take, which would be in accordance with the laws of Wikipedia, to have it rectified?"? Moreover, is it not a moral obligation to check on an article that someone accuses it of being inaccurate? --Defetistul (talk) 11:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)