Jump to content

User talk:EeuHP

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EeuHP (talk | contribs) at 17:09, 25 February 2014. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Talk:Ramon Berenguer III, Count of Barcelona

Talk:Ramon Berenguer III, Count of Barcelona might interest you.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 04:14, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter III of Aragon

What is your rationale for preferring the late portrait of Peter over a contemporary coin? Your edits are predominantly changes to lead images, yet you almost never leave an edit summary explaining them. You also reverted my change without even knowing what "contemporary" means or whether a certain image was contemporary with the subject or not. The reasons to prefer the coin are:

  • it is a contemporary artefact, giving information about Peter's reign (w/ a caption) and about how he was seen by his subjects in his lifetime
  • the coin does not mislead readers about the times of Peter III, as the portrait might
  • the silver coin on a white background is more striking than the somewhat garish portrait in low-resolution JPG format
  • it is far more likely that the limited detail of the coin is accurate (clean shaven and long-haired) than the greater detail of the imaginary portrait
  • the later portrait is one of a series of nearly indistinguishable royal portraits from two centuries later, it gives us no information about Peter or his reign, its sole purpose was decorative
  • what makes the coin an image of Peter is that that is when it was struck and what for, but what makes the later portrait an image of Peter is that somebody labelled it that way—they could just as easily have labelled an image of any other Aragonese king

In your last edit summary, you ask "if I have to choose between two unreal representations, I prefer the portrait", but nobody is asking you to choose or what you prefer. Srnec (talk) 14:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Srnec, the problem is that we have different criteria.
You think the images should provide information about the lives of the persons and be of the age in which these people lived. I think the only thing to do is to give a visual representation of the person, the article is to the information.
I think that a portrait (even if wasn't painted during the live of the person) is most valid that a little image carved in a coin. The two representations have the same chance of not being 100% accurate, but at least one illustrates better than the other.
If not exist any portrait of this person, then I accept a coin's image or a poor drawing. But the present picture accomplish the role and I think that it must be more time.--EeuHP (talk) 15:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I already argued why the coin is a better illustration and you've just asserted the contrary. Do you have an argument? Why are your criteria better than mine? Srnec (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Peter III.
Peter III.
Really? When I rebutted all your arguments in your talk page, I stated my reasons. But I do not want another long discussion with you. I offer consensus. Would you take a picture of the first part of the thirteenth century?--EeuHP (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Both of those are improvements over the 17th-century image, but not over the coin. At least one other editor agrees with me. Srnec (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I'm not agree with your second comment, but I hope we have made ​​a step in the right direction. This discussion is already too long. Both images are the best ones that meet your rigid standard of closeness to the character's life. Either both seem right.--EeuHP (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Imposing your personal preference is not how it occurs on Wikipedia

I noticed in the message above that this is not the first time that you try to impose pictures on articles regardless of what others think. You are not allowed to impose your will. Both Pedro I of Brazil and Pedro II of Brazil are Featured Articles. They were reviewed by several editors. Stop with your edit warring. --Lecen (talk) 15:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lecen is aware of the three-revert rule. Are you? You've reverted four times on both Pedro I and Pedro II in the last 24 hours. You should undo your last revert and seek dispute resolution, such as discussion on the talk page or a request for comment. DrKiernan (talk) 15:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can arrive to consensus. But the posture of Lecen is very dogmatic.
  • Pedro I of Brazil. I have only slightly increased the size of the image and change the phrase by other more accurate. ¿Result? War.
  • Pedro II of Brazil. I put a featured and most valued image that is better than the actual, but he said war.
How can we begin to reach consensus? Let's talk about it. --EeuHP (talk) 15:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Peter III of Aragon. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Lecen (talk) 18:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I make a change, I'm guilty for wanting to change. If he makes a change, I'm guilty for wanting to keep the previous version. Amazing.--EeuHP (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. --Lecen (talk) 18:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for edit warring, as you did at Peter III of Aragon. 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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. 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.

Per a complaint at WP:AN3. See a permanent link to the report. EdJohnston (talk) 20:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Petition of unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

EeuHP (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This punishment is absolutely unfair and inequitable. First reason. Comparation of real situations: * User A changes an article. User B opposes. Edit warring. Both violate the rule of three reversals. User A is punished. *User Z changes an article . User A opposes. Edit warring. Both violate the rule of three reversals. User A is punished. Is this sensible? In addition, this block for a month is based on that I already was blocked for a week time ago. But this block was an error (because the edition that was considerate a reversion was other different change).--EeuHP (talk) 21:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have been edit warring for several days against two different editors. Prior to this block, you were blocked three times for edit warring in October 2013, once for 36 hours, next for one week, and last for two weeks, so the duration of this block is justifiable. As for the rest, WP:NOTTHEM. Bbb23 (talk) 01:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

By the way, the user Lecen just violated the rule of the three reversals for the third time in two days. [1].

The edition that Lencen has reversed is not mine, had been in place since 2011 at least (Srnec changed it three days ago and so had edit warring). If there is a decent user, I would appreciate that restore it.--EeuHP (talk) 22:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the blocking admin. Would you like to explain all the block notices in User talk:EeuHP/Archive 1? You believe you were correct all those other times too? It does not seem that you *ever* wait for consensus before changing an image, even in a Featured article. I am wondering now why this block was not indefinite. It does not appear you will ever change. EdJohnston (talk) 23:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Moral lessons are appropriate when whoever says comply with morality. And you have not restored the pre-conflict edition in Peter III and has punished someone for doing one thing and another person who has done the same thing (or worse) is not punished.--EeuHP (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Petition

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

EeuHP (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I talk about me, Bbb23, not about others.
First. Blocking two weeks was wrong because the user that imposed me the blocking thought wrongly that I reopen a war in the article Nicholas II of Russia, when I made other different change (yielding to my opponent). Strictly speaking, I was blocked by accept the point of view of the other user. I left because I was incredulous and I could not answer a question that was asked and I would have canceled the blockade. Really was an ugly affair.

I committed an error in the discussion of the brazilian emperors (not in Peter III of Aragon, because Srnec changed an edition accepted by all from 2011 without consensus). I'm impatient and I haven't friends to do the reversal Number 4 in my place, but it is not fair to pay for my mistake a more expensive price because of the mistake of another user.

Another mistake was made again ... and it is serious. It is assumed that rules are the same for all on wikipedia. I do not understand why someone no acts against an infringer just because in the other side there's another infringer. It would be appreciated that someone will act according to law, and if nobody wants to do it, at least I was unblocked for a day to file the appropriate complaint. After all, the evidence is clear and there is no favoritism here, I think.--EeuHP (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were edit warring, quite unambiguously. The block is as long as it is because you seem to have made a habit of edit warring, judging from your block log. You seem to misunderstand our WP:3RR policy if you think "I haven't friends to do the reversal Number 4 in my place" is in any way beneficial; it's not reversal number 4 that constitutes edit warring, it's all other reversions beside the first one. Even though you've been blocked now four times for WP:EDITWAR, you don't seem to comprehend that we really mean it. Don't edit war. Next block might be much much longer. --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.


(The door opens.)

Hello, EeuHP. We are some administrators. You are blocked during a month.

_Why?


Edit warring and violation of the rule of three reversals.

_Fuck. Could you remove two weeks of the month? In October I was blocked for this time without a reason.


No, the rules are sacred. You broke a rule, you don't understand our policies, you must be punished severely until you learn the lesson. The rules are unbreakable.

_Oh, well. And Srnec?


What?

_Srnec. My opponent in some wars where I participated. In this last war, he removed an edition of 2011 without consensus, didn't answer my offer of consensus, put his change other time... and the most important, he made five consecutive editions.


So what?

_If I was blocked because I made four consecutive editions, why he is free like a bird? I don't say lies, you can see the evidences in the down list.


You committed violation of the rule of the three reversals.

_Yes, but he also. Is not normal that, when I make a change, the previous version has priority and, when I defend the previous version, the change has priority.


I do not care. We're talking about you, this is your punishment.

_Oh, well. But you have the evidences. Will you do something about it?


Something what?

_Srnec broke the rule of three reversals. He has almost as many past as I do. The rules are unbreakable... you know?


(The door closes)

--EeuHP (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


List of Evidences

User Srnec violated the rule of three reversals:

--EeuHP (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

EeuHP (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Having most of the i sentence passed, I request the unblocking. If someone is concerned about the possibility of more edit wars, I say that I will stick to the rules scrupulously, with caution and paying attention to detail for not ignore any aspect.--EeuHP (talk) 4:31 pm, Yesterday (UTC−6)

Accept reason:

Six additional days' time is probably not going to accomplish any more than already has been, and further problems can be dealt with as/if they arise, I think. - Vianello (Talk) 20:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3RR requests

OK, I'm going to attempt to discuss this with you on your talk page, as we've had no luck getting you to understand the issues so far.
  • The issues in question occurred a month ago. If you want to make a 3RR case, it needs to be within a day or so of the incident occurring.
  • Blocks are preventative, not punitive. This means that blocks are not used to punish people for wrongdoing, but to stop any further disruption from a given editor.
  • Opening one stale AN3 case is not a good move. Immediately refiling it after the first one closed as "stale" is disruptive. Spamming your case on ANI, a couple of other Wikipedia talk-space pages, and several administrator's talk pages is incredibly disruptive, and you are quite lucky that you didn't get blocked for these actions.
  • Consensus can change. Just because something has been in an article for two years does not mean that it has to stay there indefinitely, and particularly not if something more relevant appears, or any other kind of improvement. This is not an opinion on which image was "better", just a note.
  • You have a history of edit warring, and being sanctioned for exactly this reason. This is something you need to address, as otherwise you leave yourself open to being sanctioned.
I hope you take this into account, and move on from this issue to pastures new. This is a very big encyclopedia, why fixate yourself on your old issues? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I know that the issues occurred a month ago, but I couldn't put the complaint because I was blocked one month. I asked someone to do it, but nobody did. So, it's not fair.
  • I've Committed Offenses two and I have not Been apperceived. If I was blocked by the same offense, why he not?
  • Conseus can change, but the image of Peter III of Aragon was punt in 2011 without oposition. And Srnec change the image without consensus. Moreover, the user Lecen remove the image previous of the discussion. Why when I change an image, the image previous should prevail until the consensus and when I defend the previous version the change must prevail?
  • Yes, I have an historial and I was sanctioned. But he also has an historial and he is not sanctioned because the historial is "old". I don't understand. If you are lucky and you do not get caught, you are free?
  • Yes, this is a great encyclopedia and I'm surprised that no one wants to punish a clear violation.--EeuHP (talk) 14:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should the other user in question have been blocked at that time? Maybe. But this was a month ago. You had three previous blocks for edit-warring in this area, and the other user had none; that is probably why you got blocked, and they did not. You cannot file complaints on Wikipedia when they are "stale"; this is not like real life, and Wikipedia:There is no justice is probably a good thing for you to read. Again, just because no-one opposed the image in 2011 does not mean that it has a divine right to stay in there. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, he should have been blocked at the time, but I couldn't put the complaint in due course. It's a vicious circle.
  • About the image, I do not ask "divine right". I'm just saying there has to be a discussion with reasons and votes and after a while, the preferred choice of the majority must be placed. But so far, the previous version should prevail.
  • I've been blocked four times and he should have been blocked two times. But if his infractions are not quantified, it will always have a clean curriculum and the administrators will give him the reason forever. It's not fair. He did two violations of the rule, he doesn't worry and he is proud of his hability for outwit the the administrators and the locks. Really is too much ask that a user who violated the rules receives the legal sanction?--EeuHP (talk) 15:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, unfortunately, whether he should've been blocked at the time is a moot point when it is a month later. You're right that there should have been a discussion, but let's not forget, it takes at least two to edit war, and you were certainly not innocent. At the time, you were deemed to be the worst offender of the two, which is why you were blocked and not them. Honestly, the best thing for you to do is just to leave this in the past; accept that maybe you were done an injustice, and move on. There's so much to do here that rehashing a month-stale dispute isn't worth your time. And I'd ignore anything Srnec says about you on their userpage as well; particularly as they're not saying they're proud of their actions. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explanation. While Srnec and I discussed in Petronilla of Aragon, Srnec reopened an old war mine in Nicholas II of Russia. An administrator see the article of Nicholas II and thought "a recidivist user against a user with clean curriculum... block for the recidivist". This was the reason why I couldn't present a complaint in this moment. And now, the story begin again. And I must accept it other time?--EeuHP (talk) 16:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid you'll have to either accept it, or just simply forget about it, because continuing to dwell on it isn't going to help you. Just because you were discussing something in one place, it doesn't mean that exempts you from discussion elsewhere on separate or related issues, I'm afraid. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EeuHP&oldid=597092791"