User talk:CroatiaShoes

Welcome!

Hello, CroatiaShoes, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! —Ashanda (talk) 13:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR[edit]

And you broke it before me in conjuction with this here .Garda40 (talk) 17:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A self revert does not count as a revert. That is two reverts. I make sure to not brake 3RR. I have reported you.CroatiaShoes (talk) 17:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked for edit warring at Digital terrestrial television in the Republic of Ireland. The block will last for 24 hours. Should you give an undertaking not to make further edits of a similar nature for the remaining duration of your block, I or another administrator, may be willing to release the block early. If you wish to give such an undertaking or if you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. CIreland (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|1=tried to not edit war and opened discussion with the editor in question to solve the problem here and here, however he just replied with abusive comments here, here and here. I did not break the 3RR rule and made sure I didn't. I didn't want to break the rules. I did everything by the book. If I'm unblocked all I will do is go back to my good editing. I most certainly won't revert and will attempt to once again engage in discussion with the editor who broke 3RR to what exactly the problem is. Wikipedia policy states: Deliberate engagement in edit warring instead of discussion is a breach of Wikiquette and may cause user blocks from editing. I most certainly attempted discussion so this doesn't apply to me. Also policy states: Blocks occur when there is evidence that users cannot or will not moderate their behavior, often demonstrated by an inflexible demeanor, incivility, or past instances of edit warring and unchanged behavior. I have never once been inflexible and continiuously attempted to get discussions going but only got abuse back. I did not break the 3rr rule and did everything by the book. Can I be unblocked to get discussions going?}}

Just to clarify, do you undertake not to continue edit-warring on the Ireland vs. Republic of Ireland issue? CIreland (talk) 19:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm I will not edit-war, this was the only article where I did so (I've said the reasons why above). I am more than happy to discuss the issue with this editor.CroatiaShoes (talk) 19:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Per assurance above

Request handled by: CIreland (talk) 19:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.CroatiaShoes 20:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipeire[edit]

Not nice to see you back with what, your 110th sock now, is it? Snappy56 (talk) 03:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snowded trusted you, Wikipiere. I think folks, a community ban is in order. GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Enough is enough. I was all for giving him/her the benefit of doubt and another chance, but when a person engages in yet more warring subterfuge not 5 days after admitting their previous use of socks for precisely the same purpose was inappropriate, "of no benefit" and "wasting everyone's time", then they CLEARLY havn't accepted the need to change. I therefore retract all previous assertions that this person deserves a chance, and endorse an indefinite community ban. Enough people have given this editor the "benefit of the doubt" only to have it spat back in their faces through blatant and repeated contravention of guidelines. And common decency for that matter. Guliolopez (talk) 12:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]