User talk:PPEMES/Archives/2017/June

your !vote at Talk:Cathedral of the Assumption
Just a note that I did not consider your !vote while closing the RM because you did not provide a rationale. See WP:POLL. Yashovardhan (talk) 16:25, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your last messages in Commons, but let's focus on en.wikipedia. I've been told to see if here is it possible to reach a consensus because it's seems we are stuck in Commons. I believe it's a good idea since Wikipedia has the same problem and has already reached a consensus about the name of both the main article and the main category.

Don't worry if I have to revert my changes in Commons. It's easy for me. Anyway, it seems it will be easier to reach wide consensus here than there. --Grabado (talk) 12:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC) Grabado (talk) 12:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Swedish Wikipedia

 * I cannot endorse your track record on Swedish Wikipedia, but I did myself have quite of a displeasant experience with a couple of its administrators. The account I am writing from was previously permanently blocked under rather deplorable circumstances. Other people were writing on my Swedish talk page in order to discredit, while an administrator bluntly blocked my account upon an opinion expressed on a talk page. Although it has been a relief to participate in the English Wikipedia and its mostly friendly community, I still do regret the events that unfolded on the Swedish one. Please let me know if I can be at help, and vice versa. Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * However,, would you mind giving an explanation to why a period of two years would be necessary prior to relief from the block of this user account on Swedish Wikipedia, please? Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You have the record of being most frequent on our page for discsuss adm action for experienced user behaving bad. You were in length told of the problem in your edits. And was blocked 6 times for successive longer periods (by six different admins, not me). The discussion of the different block can be found at sv:Wikipedia:Kommentarer_om_administrationen_av_Wikipedia/Arkiv_2015 with links to earlier discusions (which in turn point to even earlier discussion). After last block ended you immediatly started wih the type of edits that caused problem for you before, so in that instance a longer block was laid without further discussion (it was alredy covered and proposed in the block 6 months earlier, linked to above). The problems were related to biased editing of some subjects, and refusal to back down when there was a consensus against. And breach of several of our guidelines like Etiquete, edit wars etc. And you comment above indicate to me that you still not understand what type of edits and reactions caused you so much problems. And for no other user have we spend, so mamy of us, energy to explain to you why it was problematic. And if you do not understand what you did that was wrong, there is little hope you would be welcome back, as we do not want to spend more time explaining. And I am happy for you to be able to have more success on this version.Yger (talk) 17:48, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your answer. I did make mistakes in edits. I have likely been more determined than usual about advocating an over the board consensus contrary to that of Swedish Wikipedia. Regarding etiquette, however, the only time I can recall that anyone has accused me of breach is here (judge for yourself). Notably, this is the very edit that had blocking this account indefinitely. To add to this, during the controversy, previously one or more users disturbed my Swedish talk page perhaps trying to come across as me trolling in order to provoke mischief. This is what disturbs me the most, since this seemingly was used against me.
 * Anyway, as for referring to international consensus regarding articles on Swedish Wikipedia pertaining to religious or political issues, I currently lack motivation. Yeah, I did give up on the individuals which guarded their positions. However, don't you find it remarkable that there has been no equivalent measures against my account on English or any other versions, considering that the contributions have been far larger beyond the Swedish version? In that case, what would make you reconsider a state of a permanent block if not that? You and I have always had maintained a descent tone despite of other more confrontational voices, and I appreciate that. Since there is none who is more related to this permanent block issue than you, I deem your sense of fairness is the only reference that could alter the forementioned permanent block decision regrettably carried out by . Thanks. Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I will look into the possiblity to enable you to discuss on your talkpage on svwp. I will come back in a week or two.Yger (talk) 08:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, ! Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I have now opened up your discussion page, but only for you to put forward reasons and request to be unblocked.Yger (talk) 18:16, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information! However, I'm not sure how to go about there. Please note that I have never been affected of any such treatment here on English Wikipedia or any other versions. However, the few administrators I have come cross there seem extremely trigger happy of blocking. An unblock request is likely to risk attracting harassment from other accounts who weren't fond of mine in the first place. That would risk evolving into a discussion that will enable them to justify blocking per se just as easy as they did last time. The thing is, I would wish to minimilise interaction with any disapproving users there while simply being able to be unblocked most importantly in order to regain control over my userpage, talk page, and username. Is there no way for a third party user to request unblock of another one? Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you please tell me how to file this request without sparking a new conflict, including harassments from the Swedish users that had me blocked in the first place? I have written extensively over the board on Wikipedia, and although I don't do that so much anymore, it would be a relief to have my user account on the Swedish Wikipedia unblocked, if not only to be able to control it including its user page and talk page. Thank you! Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * On your request I made it possible for you to comment on you ban on your talkpage on swwp. I beleive it was a request reasonable even when you are banned. Any further wishes etc should be made in a transparent way on your talkpage on swwp and in Swedish, not here.Yger (talk) 13:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have filed a request there (although its motivation does not show - feel free to fix that if you know how to). Thanks again. Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:33, 21 June 2017 (UTC)