User talk:R.Arden

Gerard Depardieu[edit]

You don't change your nationality like that. Trust me, i'm in the field. Moreover, you should think about your historical method. There are relevant sources and irrelevant sources. And in this case, you should start with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons. Good day to you.

R.Arden- I changed his name back to the correct version and you deleted that as non-constructive? You should be taken off Wikipedia. Very irresponsible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.218.74.34 (talk) 15:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"[Kremlin is] an official diplomatic source, with recognized good-faith"… OK, let's play your game: do you have any source to justify this claim? I mean: seriously. You see, sources are one thing. Thinking is another. (87.67.143.211 (talk))

And may I insist: international law is not as easy as reading a website paper. Until France did not take off Depardieu's nationality, you just CAN'T tell anything for now. Point.

Zherar Depardyo[edit]

не французский и не русский, а он монгольский, новый актёр — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.69.245.199 (talk) 15:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Это что, шутка с большим новым Александр Pistoletov в видеоролик о математических классов? -R.Arden (talk) 15:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Это Мордор!--62.69.245.199 (talk) 15:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Putin macht Gérard Depardieu zum Russen[edit]

Bitte mal ganz ruhig abwarten (!) was und ob Depardieu selbst dazu sagt.. Eine Enzyklopädie ist doch kein Newsticker. Siehe z.B. auch http://www.spiegel.de/kultur/gesellschaft/filmstar-gerard-depardieu-von-putin-zum-russen-ernannt-a-875537.html :

"Die Formulierung des Kreml, wonach Depardieu einen Antrag auf Einbürgerung gestellt hatte, wurde von einem Assistenten des Schauspielers dementiert. Der Neu-Russe selbst meldete sich bisher nicht zu Wort." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.138.126.65 (talk) 15:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note[edit]

Also, when doing vandal revision the last template you put on the IP vandalizing Gérard Depardieu Wasn't needed. Good Day! §haun 9∞76 ^༆ 15:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A belated welcome![edit]

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, R.Arden. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! §haun 9∞76 ^༆ 15:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Civility warning January 2013[edit]

Please note that this edit is unacceptable. First, what you were reverting was not [[WP:Vandalism|vandalism]. This is not vandalism, this is content issue, and you are the edit-warring party. Second, the issue is being discussed at the talk page, and has not yet reached consensus. Please stop edit-warring and stop issuing incivil comments, otherwise you will be reported to administrators. Thank you for understanding.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you now accused me of vandalism and incivility, I opened this ANI thread. Hereby the notification.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Due to your repeated actions at Gérard Depardieu I have filed an addendum to the initial report due to your crusading, bloody-minded and wholly wrong interpretation of policy. You'll find it in the same thread at ANI, hence this notification. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 18:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, R.Arden. You have new messages at V4711's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

January 2013[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistent disruptive editing. 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 below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

First and foremost, i understand the reasons why i was banned, however i strongly disagree with it due to the context on which the events occurred and in the context on which the ban was applied. The allegations being Disruptive editing: including edit-warring, WP:BLP issues, tendentious editing and battleground behaviour, i must point out the fact that it all started not due to my behaviour, which was at the moment the context started, just reverting and reporting ips who were vandalizing the article Gérard Depardieu, by claiming he was from Mongolia, Morocco Mordor or other similar nonsense (as can be seen in [1] and[2] for instance. Problem started after i reverted one time by Mezigue an edit where new information and references were removed [3]. After this edition, an IP 87.67.143.211 with no edits whatsoever appeared and started to make claims without sources over content that was already backed by sources. I deemed this suspicious, and started reverting and asking, both in edit summary, talk page and user talk page that references should be posted in order to remove the content he was removing. After this moment, both Mezingue and 87.67.143.211 started replying as if one was the other, which increased my suspicion, but did not raised it enough to consider it socketing. After this point, at least 5 other users sustained my edit (Rmb009, Stephen MUFC, And we drown, Shaun9876 and some IPs), while i got busy reverting minor vandalisms by Jauhen.v (who was changing nationality to moroccan and bielorussian). The content on the page was ongoing debate on talk page after i called bothe Mezingue and 97;67.143.211 to it, and then all of the sudden "X ziomal X" stepped in the article and removed content, fully ignoring the talk page. I reverted it, seeing it as vandalism and asked him to debate at talk page. Ymblanter then appeared out of the blue and started what i perceived as WP:Harassment, due to the badgery language used to claim i was uncivil (which i was not until then). When i replied, saying that he was the one being uncivil, i confused him with X Ziomal X, and claimed his edit was indeed vandalism (what i apologised for imediatelly). After that, Ymblanter made the INA post, and suddenly more than one IP with no edits whatsoever (such as 212.7.192.145) and a fellow named Captain Screebo appeared out of the blue and started to disrupt the talk page and at the same time attack me in said INA note. From this point on, hostilities increased severely by the part of them (as shown on the INA note about Screebo) while i tried to sustain a debate on talk page toguether with other users such as Yulia Romero, Seb az86556, Cattani and V4711). While i do realize i went over the edge when i started to reply back to Screebo and the other mentioned, i do not agree that i edit warred, as i clearly tried to reach a consensus on talk page more than one time [4] [5] and my conduct was to always try to promote the debate there. At the same time, Screebo's posture was to refuse any debate of sorts, and forcibly impose his opinion, either by trying to form an army to "fight off the like-minded souls" in Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Gérard_Depardieu, or by claiming other editors (not only me) were "Quite honestly ridiculous" and overtly violating 3RR (while others even when reversing removed content, tried to update it or even form a new consensual version). Given that, while i fully agree that eventually i adopted a "battleground behaviour" after feeling harassed and threatened by such actions, i strongly disagree that i did any Disruptive editing: including edit-warring, WP:BLP issues and tendentious editing. And on that basis, and considering my clean past in english wikipedia and my long and clean past in other language wikipedias, i would like to ask for my punishment to be a warning, and not a block, or at least that the block is reduced according to the stated (that i only adopted a "battleground behaviour" after feeling harassed and threatened by such actions, and did not did any disruptive editing: including edit-warring, WP:BLP issues and tendentious editing). Given that, i wait for a reply and apologize in advance by this imense wall of text i just wrote. -R.Arden (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Part 2 of the Appeal
I don't expect to be unblocked. However, i expect to be judged by my actions, not by Captain Screebo's actions and for that to occur, we should not be blocked by the same period of time. Although i do wish to be unblocked, i recognize i indeed took a "battleground behaviour". What i disagree on, is the other charges, as i justified above, and for that i ask for a reduction of the time blocked, not a full pardon. Also, i would like to point out that there is a basic difference betwhen my appeal and Screebo's appeal, and that is, that during my appeal not only i detailed the situation entirely and presented a reasonable defense, but i also acted most civilfully in it, while i realize that was not the case in Screebo's defense. What i would like to point out, is that the mistake i did was an exception, and that not only i recognize it but i am also redeeming myself from it. What i can offer in my position is that. The assurance that said behaviour will not repeat itself. And i base that on my previous and impecable past in other languages wikipedia. I understand if you still refuses my plea anyway, but if so, i would like you to tell me in what my appeal is wrong (such as you did to Screebo), and not how long or what is wrong with that other user's appeal. With that, i again apologise for taking your time and for the situation caused by my stances, and await your reply. -R.Arden (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Considering the amount of aggression you have shown to other editors, quite apart from the other issues, the only thing about this block that might be considered doubtful is that it is so short. Also, posting a long account of how unreasonable you think other editors have been, and how unfair you think it is that someone else wasn't blocked for even longer than you, does not increase the likelihood of your being unblocked. Your unblock request is assessed on the basis of what you have done. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have severely misunderstood my appeal, if you think i am "posting a long account of how unreasonable you think other editors have been, and how unfair you think it is that someone else wasn't blocked for even longer than you". I tried to demonstrate why i did not acted in bad faith, and why i considered that only one, out of 5 allegations that led to the blocking were valid. Also, i may have strongly disagreed with others, but never have i insulted or assaulted anyone. However, given the decision has already been taking, i bid you farewell and thank you for your time. -R.Arden (talk) 21:08, 4 January 2013 (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.

You'll notice the other editor involved was blocked for the same period of time, and just had his unblock declined...are you honestly expecting to be unblocked considering that? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't expect to be unblocked. However, i expect to be judged by my actions, not by Captain Screebo's actions and for that to occur, we should not be blocked by the same period of time.

Although i do wish to be unblocked, i recognize i indeed took a "battleground behaviour". What i disagree on, is the other charges, as i justified above, and for that i ask for a reduction of the time blocked, not a full pardon.

Also, i would like to point out that there is a basic difference betwhen my appeal and Screebo's appeal, and that is, that during my appeal not only i detailed the situation entirely and presented a reasonable defense, but i also acted most civilfully in it, while i realize that was not the case in Screebo's defense.

What i would like to point out, is that the mistake i did was an exception, and that not only i recognize it but i am also redeeming myself from it. What i can offer in my position is that. The assurance that said behaviour will not repeat itself. And i base that on my previous and impecable past in other languages wikipedia.

I understand if you still refuses my plea anyway, but if so, i would like you to tell me in what my appeal is wrong (such as you did to Screebo), and not how long or what is wrong with that other user's appeal.

With that, i again apologise for taking your time and for the situation caused by my stances, and await your reply.

-R.Arden (talk) 23:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

first, you should not have amended you unblock in the manner you did after it had been commented upon. Second, you're making a bad accusation that I did not judge you based on your own actions: It's insulting to suggest that, and is obviously not the case based on the very different reasons for your blocks. Considering your block should have been for longer than his, I could make it longer now if you wish. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is the propper way to ammend an unblock request?

And i did not acused you of judging me by his actions. I asked you to show me my mistakes as you did to him, as so far i haven't seem you pointing out the flaws in my appeal.

That is pretty much it. If you believe my block should have been longer than his, then i can only feel disappointed. I do not want that happen, but i strongly believe that at least i tried to act in good faith, despite my battleground behaviour, while the other used just took random insults at me when confronted with references displeasing him. And that in my opinion would render a smaller punishment, not a larger one.

But, one can be wrong more than once, and perhaps this is the second time i am wrong in wikipedia today... -R.Arden (talk) 23:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear that you was blocked for the same time as other guy. (V4711) --Victor•talk 02:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is okay. Like i said earlier in a discussion, i rather live, BE BOLD and get blocked when my editions or my existance annoys someone than just be a meek editor with a lot of personal lobbying with other editors. That however does not makes me feel less dissapointed by the unfair blocking (unfair in the sense that i should never obtain more or the same ammount of blocked time as a person who clearly lacks any civility to edit wikipedia or partake in a civilized debate), specially given the whole context where i got dragged into the fight. -R.Arden (talk) 03:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's unfair. Hope you'll be back to Wiki soon. --Victor•talk 20:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words, and i hope to be back soon! After my block ends, give me a call for any help or assistance you may need :) -R.Arden (talk) 23:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. In which country are you? --Victor•talk 00:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Taedonggang Brewing Company, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Draught (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]