User talk:Opo Chano

January 2015
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Vienna Conservatory, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Blanking an article with whose content you disagree is not the way to address a content issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that you were a vandal. But your blanking of a page because of a content issue appeared to be vandalism. I am giving you credit for good faith, that you meant well, but it was the wrong way to do what you were trying to do.  I trust that you have learned.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Dolph
Who really cares what his exact height is ? I'm not claiming him to be 6'6! Read the sentence. The source purely claims he was 6'6 and an IQ of 160 and I've seen more recent interviews of him where he's publicly said they're both exaggerated. Even the bodybuilding website interview states 6'3" today. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  08:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome
You seem to be new here? A few hints for more politeness.
 * Better don't move pages without discussion, unless it's just a misspelling or something like this.
 * Certainly don't do it a second time. After having been reverted: discuss.
 * Don't ever change other people's talk pages, unless it's severe vandalism. Even then, better call an admin. I don't revert your revert this one time (or rather two times), but only because you seem to be new here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Entropy. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Heterosexuality— because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. —Entropy (talk) 00:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Explaining
I patrolled your page. I went through the enormously-backlogged list of newly-created pages and confirmed that your page was okay: not spam, not an attack page, not a copyright violation, not any of the other reasons for which I would delete someone's page without asking. Then I clicked "patrolled" to remove it from the list of "pages that have not yet been patrolled", and moved on to the next entry. That's all. DS (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Für Elise
Your move: big difference between "Elise" and "Moonlight": both are the commonly known name but the former was possible written by the composer, the latter is the translation of an idea by someone after the composer's death. Do you know that we have a procedure to request a move? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Repeating: please don't move but use the formal request. Before even suggesting a move, study the archives about how often that has been discussed already, to imagine how tired people are of a topic, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The edit I made to your revision on the Batman article was my first on that topic, so there was no edit warring. However, you claim you have provided a source. Please cite that source in the article. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JosephSpiral (talk • contribs) 23:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Vienna Conservatory
Are you aware that Vienna Conservatory is not about a specific institution, but a disambiguation page page, helping people to find the right one of several known under a similar name? I will revert to that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC) Your website is for Vienna Konservatorium, - you can create that article if you wish. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Please see Disambiguation. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * You better revert yourself on Vienna Conservatory, - otherwise I see trouble for you. I tried to explain on the article talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:07, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Then see trouble for me. I don't care. I have explained everything in a right way on the talk page of it's article. Opo Chano (talk) 13:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * No, you explained but it doesn't make sense to me and the others. Are you able to listen? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes I am able to listen but it seems that you won't listen among with other users! I told you several times that the Vienna Conservatory is not a disambuguation page! So please stop writing to me and stop reverting. If I see one more revert I will contact an admin. Opo Chano (talk) 13:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Weegeerunner (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Reverts
I'm restricting you to zero reverts on any mainspace page for 90 days, unless the revert is to remove clear vandalism. Discuss your issues on talk pages or noticeboards. You can also bring your prospective reverts to my talk page, I'll be happy to help evaluate them. Dreadstar ☥   06:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Blocked
I will explain in more detail in a half hour or so when I am not on a mobile device and can write more easily. Until then the block log entry explains. Dreadstar I'm having trouble checking timestamps easily on this, if it turns out you warned after his latest revert I can unblock with your restriction in place if you'd like. I didn't see it until after the block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked you indefinitely because you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works, and you need to stop editing until you understand it. It is collaborative. Your insistence on having your way at the expense of everyone else's opinion is causing disruption, and you have clearly stated that you don't ever plan to change. I hope with time you'll realize how impossible this approach is on a collaborative project. If not, I guess we will have to do without your knowledge. A shame. See the standard notice below for how to request an unblock if you decide to adjust your approach. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring, and promising to continue to do so forever. 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. Floquenbeam (talk) 15:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Unblock my account!

 * You were asked politely by (at my informal count), 4 different editors not to edit war, and then told by 2 admins not to, but right up until the block you continued to do it, and continued to claim you would keep doing it no matter what. Another admin put you on a restriction not to revert anything for 90 days, and you ignored it.  Claiming that it is "absolutely unfair" you were blocked is further evidence that you don't intend to make any effort to understand anything about how this place works.  I would suggest to the reviewing admin that if they decide an unblock is warranted, that you be unblocked on the condition that you be required to follow Dreadstar's 0RR restriction (a section or two above), and the block be re-implemented if you don't follow it. But personally, I'm not convinced that even giving you that last chance is warranted until there is a sea change in your attitude. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * OK. Please give me a last chance. If other users have different opinions than me on some articles, I will discuss that out without eidwarring. I said I'm sorry but I don't know what else to do than appologizing. But I also have to say that it is a bit unfair that you blocked me without a warning on my talk page before getting blocked and you blocked me indefinitely. That'S really rude. SO I appologized. Please give me a last chance and I will follow the rules of Wikipedia. Opo Chano (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If unblocked with a 0RR restriction, would you abide by the 0RR restriction? PhilKnight (talk) 20:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes of course. Please give me a last chance. Opo Chano (talk) 23:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess we should give them a second chance, as they seem to agree with an unblocking with a 0RR restriction. Weegeerunner (talk) 19:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Plagiarism
In this edit you created a page composed entirely of the work of others. Each of those other editors donated their work under the CC-BY-SA licence and was entitled to have it attributed if re-used. This you failed to do. When you created that page under your name, you passed off other editors' work as your own, and that is called plagiarism. I would be very most unhappy to see you unblocked without some realisation on your part of what plagiarism is and without some assurance from you that you would not commit the same mistake again. --RexxS (talk) 21:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And I won't do the same mistake again. I promise! Opo Chano (talk) 23:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)