Hi Alex Makedon. I see you have been removing my comments in RoM talk page and disseminating propaganda in my talk page. I'm afraid you are in violation of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia#Purpose_of_Wikipedia --   Avg    17:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see why you consider saying a cheerfyll hallo - a "disseminating propaganda"... Where is the ideological struggle? In best regards or in many happy cheers or the propaganda is saying im citizen of Republic of Macedonia?...

I dont know what is your problem, and are you seeing problems where arent any? In this situation its you that is using the Wikipedia to makeup ideological struggles out of nothing, im very disappointed :-(

Yes I have deleted 1 sentence on the section i opend at the Republic of Macedonia discission page, since i wos remaking the whole section, so your sentence - provocation wos deleted... If you still consider essential and constructive for the Wikipedia the comment you added feel free to add it again..

Anyway if you feel offended you in any manner im mor than happy to make it up to you :-) Best regards Alex Makedon (talk) 17:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Just for your information you once again violate ArbCom decisions and general Wikipedia policies by promoting ideas such as Macedonism in your user page. --   Avg    19:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear friend you can consider me violating Wikipedia even by promoting Cyrillic alphabet... thats not my problem...Alex Makedon (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read the ArbCom decision above once again and also WP:USER. It is quite obvious that people are offended if you support annexing a part of their country.--   Avg    19:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can even consider me not only wrong for Wikiperdia but an outlaw simply becouse im declaring my self Macedonian from Republic of Macedonia... its very clear who is the ultra nationalist troll here... this things make me sad... especially from educated young Europeans like you...Alex Makedon (talk) 19:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. Don't tell me I haven't warned you!--   Avg    19:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol is that a threat? now you are funny... Anyway, i have stated clear:

And as Macedonian he believes in the reunification of his land, but hopes that to be achived on cultural level and human right recognition by Greece and Bulgaria.

All im saying is that the rights of the minorities, their culture and language should be respected - is it so much?Alex Makedon (talk) 19:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This issue is already referred to an administrator. But anyway, since you;re asking for a reply, you say "Reunification" of "his" land. What reunification means and whose land is it in the first place? And what do the maps beside show? Are "Pirin" and "Aegean" Macedonia parts of Bulgaria and Greece yes or no? What means "the one Macedonia", referring to RoM? So there is no Bulgarian or Greek Macedonia?--   Avg    19:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont intend to argue with you, besides as you know Wikipedia is not a Battlefield ;) cheersAlex Makedon (talk) 19:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing with you, I'm showing you where you offended me. You advocate that you want part of my country and you deny me the use of the name Macedonian.--   Avg    19:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Omg... "I wanted a part of your country" and what im supposed to do with a part of your contry, its not a chocolate... i wos just talking bout Macedonian minorities rights, the maps shown are demographic not political... ... and i dont see where i denied you anything...Alex Makedon (talk) 20:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I take that as a confirmation from you that 1) RoM is not the "only" Macedonia, 2) Greeks are also Macedonians and 3) you will remove from your userpage the maps showing RoM united with Greek and Bulgarian Macedonia? And I didn't quite get the part where you said these are "demographic" maps... so in Aegean Macedonia there aren't 2.500.000 Greeks? --   Avg    20:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude Wikipedia is not the place for this kind of personal fights you are making... and you dont have to be so threatened by Republic of Macedonia. Its for our common good to create good positive friendly realtions. Cheers Alex Makedon (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may try to divert this as much as you want, however for the last time I'm asking you to remove nationalistic and inflammatory comments from your user page.--   Avg    20:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Im sorry you find something offending, but as i have already made clear, and if you read my posts im sure you will understand too, there is nothing to be offended about. That said, i consider this matter closed. Best regards Alex Makedon (talk) 20:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Avg dear Greek, you are not a Wikipedia moderator to accuse anyone for anything... :)

P.S. I have deleted your politically motivated defamation from my talk page, and if you insist doing the same i will contact an admin (a real one this time) for harassment and vandalism.

If you have something constructive and intelligent to say do so, if not it would be better for you just to read what other people got to say instead of harassing the Wiki users that have different oppinoin from your Greek nationalist narrow minded point of vews. I count on your good sense.

Best regards from a Macedonian friend from Republic of Macedonia. Alex Makedon

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Alexander Mak for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.    Avg    16:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can post an unblock request on your talk page if you like, but since you accussed me in your email of being anti-Macedonia when I've had no involvement in Macdedonia articles at all,.... — Rlevse • Talk • 22:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia rules state clear:

Do not use multiple accounts to create the illusion of greater support for an issue, to mislead others, to artificially stir up controversy, to aid in disruption, or to circumvent a block. Do not ask your friends to create accounts to support you or anyone else. Multiple accounts are not for collusion, evasion, disruption, or other misuse.

I did not use multiple accounts for ANY of this reasons, and you have not supported your total - ulimited - block to my IP and Account with ANY reasons, so i must assume that you have some other motivations, and that you are not objective, as ChrisO is not objective since in 48h i had no reason stated by him for his deleting my posts.

...But since you accussed me... sounds a lot like a threat, i have the right to assume someone is unfair or i dont have even that right on Wikipedia???

All this by the Wiki Admins is quite a disappointment for me...

Alex Makedon (talk) 22:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is no threat whatsoever, just doesn't help motivate me to help you. Feel free to seek other opinions. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are not motivated not motivated what do you want money from me to get you motivated, or what?? You have NOT stated ANY REASON or PROVE for MY accusation for sock puppetry!!! ANY WHAT SO EVER! you as a Moderator are obligated, not motivated or not, to state your reasons and proves for your act!!! WHY I HAVE BEEN ACCUSED AND BLOCKED FOR SOCK PUPPETRY??? Alex Makedon (talk) 22:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOCK is not a reason to try to hide from past actions, and creating a new username is not valid when there is no reason to. Edit under one account. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia states clear: user CAN create a new accout for the so called new start, or to have a clean reputation, and his posts not to be underestimated just because of his last blocks. I have not posted from Alexander Mak since, so i have edited under one account! You have no right to block me or accuse me for puppetry! Motivated or not, blocking me is an error and i want an immediate unblock or resonable motivations for this act!

Alex Makedon (talk) 22:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I – and for that matter, probably no other who has commented here – can conceive of a valid reason for you to move on to new accounts. The actions you have done are only covered if you have fulfilled all of RTV's prerequisites, which you have not:

• Personal protection - You have personally identifying information on publicly visible pages on the project, or linked to your username, or there is genuine risk of off-wiki harassment, or unacceptable on-wiki stalking, and you wish to avoid such problems.
• Permanent departure - You plan to permanently leave a project, without changing your mind in the future.

So far, all I've seen or heard of you do is accuse administrators of bias and issuing personal attacks ([1]) against users. Wanting to escape your past to wreak havoc with a new account is neither acceptable nor a valid reason to get a new account. —Animum (talk) 23:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-Its not that i wanted to escape my past blocks.

1) if i wanted to hide dont you think i would have chosen a much different name, or posted on different pages? I have never negated that Alexander Mak account is mine. But have never used it since i got Alex Makedon.

2) Alexander Mak got blocked for posting the City of Skopje page [2]that as you can see looking at the the current revision of the page [3] turned out just the way i got blocked for!!!

3) I got accused by the grek avg, linking the past block for the present posts, "you're trying to be blocked again aren't you" so i did not want the past unfair block for my post (that turned right in the current wiki page [4]) to contribute for underestimating of my current posts [5](see bottom of page, last comment)

4) Wiki puppetry page states clear: Legitimate uses of alternate accounts; Clean start under a new name, If you have a negative track record and you have decided to make a genuine, clean and honest new start, and do not wish it to be tarnished by your prior conduct, you can simply discontinue using the old account(s), and create an unconnected new account which becomes the only account you then use, and is used in a good manner[6]

5) my acc block is for puppetry or for personal attacks, make up your mind... p.s. as i posted: using the form if you are ... or the form are you a ... is not an offence, meaning that i dont assume something about my interlocutor. Even if this subject has nothing to do with my poppetry block...

6) I have not offended Admins, i just say that the one that has blocked me has made a mistake, since its cleat that by the wiki policy one CAN open a new account for a clean reputation!

By this it is clear that i have been blocked unrightfully, and for no legitimate reason and I demand an immediate unblock

Alex Makedon (talk) 23:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing the same articles with your new account, beginning only two minutes after you abandoned your old account, does not meet the "clean start" criteria at WP:SOCK. This account will remain blocked indefinitely, you must use your old account (Alexander Mak) to edit Wikipedia. Lyrl^Talk _C 22:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see the difference in editing the same atricles after 2 min, 20 min or 20 days. The things to consider are these:

1) I have created Alex Makedon when Alexander Mak was free to edit (there was NO block on my old acc when I created the new one)

2) My account did not got banned fot unapropriate editing, so, its clear that I have not created the new account to edit something provocative (despite the opinion of the greek nazionalist that used all of you admins to get me blocked)

3) As you can see here [7] I got tarnished by my prior conduct! (exactly as the WP:SOCK#LEGIT states it).

4) I have contacted the arbitration committee (arbcom-l@wikipedia.org) to note the old and the new account.

I repeat my block is unright! I can use a proxy and virtually do whatever i like ( create new account, and dont have to put up with all this, save my time too) but WHY SHOULD I DO ALL THAT WHEN I HAVE ACTED ACCORDING TO WIKIPEDIA RULES???

best regards, and i count on your neutrality and good sense!

Alex Makedon (talk) 10:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My comments[edit]

Hello, sorry I wasn't around to answer your request for assistance in time. Here's just my two cents on the situation. On the one hand, it is true that avoiding the stigma of a block log is not normally considered a legitimate reason to switch accounts. We keep block logs for a reason; we want other editors to be able to see whether a user has been blocked before. A "clean start" is not really an option if you then continue immediately with the same type of editing, especially if you keep involving yourself in the same set of disputes.

On the other hand, I believe that the SSP report against you was an act of abusive harassment, and that the 48-hour block on your main account was completely uncalled-for, since your account change evidently was not an attempt at deception. (You may be interested to see the thread I started at WT:SSP about this.)

So, my suggestion is: Since you now have not only two deserved (though newbie-ish) blocks but also one undeserved block on your old account's log, I think we should actually let you shift, by way of exception, but I'll request that you keep your two user pages linked to each other (i.e. redirect User:Alexander Mak to User:Alex Makedon and have a link to {{userlinks|Alexander Mak}} on the latter.) I'll be willing to unblock your new account under that condition and leave an explanatory note in the block log.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK seems resonable enough, still i would suggest to change the WP:SOCK#LEGIT since it will inevitably lead to misguides, to see the user history is in clear conflict with legitimate cleen start account. I will make a link on my userpage to the Alexander Mak page.

Alex Makedon (talk) 23:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have unblocked, on this understanding. When you resume editing, please remember to make an effort at editing collaboratively and keep your national issues at the door. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I always do, but willing to seek for the truth inevitably puts in trouble, since the truth hurts, and many are willing to manipulate the truth for political narrow minded reasons. Alex Makedon (talk) 10:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 22:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. For 2 weeks, for abusive edits about Wikipedia editors. Length of block is due to your prior block and sockpuppet history ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:ARBMAC you are banned from Macedonian and its talkpage due to recent disruptive editing. Moreschi (talk) 23:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, this is rather a bit too bold, don't you think? Who told you you can simply cross out your own ban? There was most certainly not a consensus to overturn Moreschi's decision at the noticeboard, and even if there was, it wouldn't be for you to make the call. The ban remains in force.

And please, why make such a fuss over it anyway? It's only a page ban from one single page after all. I mean, Jeeeesus, come on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article you may be interested in, Exodus of Ethnic Macedonians from Greece, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exodus of Ethnic Macedonians from Greece. Thank you. PMK1 (talk) 20:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

zdravo alex makedon. ne znam kako da ti kažam. Дали има докази дека децата бегалци од Егејска биле друг етнос освен Македонци?, da. Ima begalci (ne samo deca) od grcija što ne se makedonci. Imaše mnogu grci (ama množinstvoto se vrateaa vo grcija), vlasi, albanci i muslimani. Ama, makedonci tie sodržija naj golemiot del na begalcite od grcija. Imaše i politički begalci (communisti) i deca begalci i makedonski begalci. Ima dokazi i vo nimi piši deka naj golemiot del na begalci bile makedonci. Ama ako ķe baraš izvori i dokazi pobaraj izvori što ne se napišani vo makedonskiot jazik ama što se od angliski ili francuski pisateli. Ako imaš dobri izvori klaj gi na vikipedia i ako sakaš piši nešto vo razgovorot na statijata za "decata begalci". Ako imaš interes vo statijata pomoži i piši nešto ako imaš verovatni izvori. Mnogu egejci begaja poradi gragjanskata vojna vo grcija i deka nemaše hrana ni sigurnost vo egejskite sela, ne samo za poradi politikata. PMK1 (talk) 11:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buonasera a te e saluti da Campora San Giovanni. Ti scrivo in italiano, in merito agli articoli di una nota serie televisiva poliziesca: Kommissar Rex. Per meglio dire degli attori principali della serie internazionale. Martin Weinek (pronciato Vaynek) e Kaspar Capparoni. Weinek è il veterano della serie austriaca, ora membro effettivo della serie internazionale, nonché eccellente imprenditore agricolo e teatrale, ed un esperto viticoltore. Capparoni è la new entry della serie, ma lui ha già lavorato e lui lavora per produzioni internazionali e con registi famosi, cito fra tutti: Dario Argento. Penso che la serie arriverà entro l'inverno 2008 grazie anche a Rai International, che verrà trasmesso in 150 paesi e in più di 70 lingue, tra cui il macedone. Naturalmente io ricambierò la tua disponibilità traducendo in siciliano l'intero aricolo sulla tua nazione, vedi qui, nei prossimi giorni probabilmente già stasera inizierò i lavori. Spero che accetti questo e mi vieni incontro. Nell'attesa di una tua certa risposta ti porgo i miei saluti e ringraziamenti anticipati. Grazie ancora per la pazienza e la comprensione!--Lodewijk Vadacchino (talk) 19:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening to you and regards from Campora San Giovanni. I write you regarding the articles of a note police television series: Kommissar Rex. For better saying some principal actors of the international series. Martin Weinek (pronciato Vaynek) and Kaspar Capparoni. Weinek is the veteran of the Austrian series, now real member of the series international, as well as excellent agricultural and theatrical entrepreneur and an experienced wine-grower. Capparoni is the new entry of the series, but he has already worked and he works for international productions and with famous directors, I quote among everybody: Dario Argento. I think that the series will arrive within the winter 2008 thanks also to Rai International, that will be transmitted in 150 countries and in more than 70 languages, among which the Macedonian one. Naturally if you will help me in this, I will reciprocate really the favor translating a biography or a geographical article in Italian and Sicilian. In fact on the Italian edition they are biographer and geographer. In attends him of one certain answer of yours I thank you in advance and I greet you from Campora San Giovanni, my village native. Thanks still for the patience and the understanding.--Lodewijk Vadacchino (talk) 09:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, spero che ora mi aiuterai anche tu!--Lodewijk Vadacchino (talk) 21:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am most definitely not interested in this article or debate. My previous "involvement" with this topic was limited to minimally-civil interactions with a Macedonian editor over an unrelated, disambiguation page. --ž¥łǿχ (ŧäłķ | čøŋŧřīъ§) 18:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclusionist and I know language is disputed by Bulgarians and its name by Greeks. I agree however it should be written in more NPOV fashion. Luka Jačov (talk) 13:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI#User:BalkanFever and User:Alex Makedon. Somebody loves us... BalkanFever 09:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

48 hours for 3RR on Macedonia. That was really lame. See you in a couple of days. Moreschi (talk) 20:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For this and related postings. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Dubious_edits. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 17:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1 month this time, and I'm banning you from all Balkans-related articles for 3 months, just for good measure. Your edit-warring on Macedonians (Greeks) was so petty it really did set records for tendentiousness of tagging. My erstwhile congratulations. Moreschi (talk) 01:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

tendentiousness tagging asking for a single missing citation!?

I cannot even report your nazi ban on the admin noticeboard, thats not balcan-related is it? wonder what the other admins have to say about 3 month ban over a [missing citation]...

You can stick your "erstwhile congratulations" where you like them most :) Alex Makedon (talk) 10:50, 3 December 2009 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

[missing citation] and content dispute

Decline reason:

Edit warring is not permitted. The reason for this is that edit-warring is an ineffective way to solve disputes. The use of repeated reversion rather than discussion is only permissible in emergency situations, such as those caused by defamatory content. This is especially the case in topic areas that have been subject to long-term nationalist edit-warring. Unless you can explain why you felt that there was an emergency that meant that you needed to revert immediately, this block would appear to be valid. Additionally, given your history of disruptive behaviour in this topic area, the block length seems reasonable. I would suggest that if you choose to make another unblock request that you offer to submit to some voluntary restrictions, such as a self-imposed topic-ban from Macedonia-related articles. CIreland (talk) 14:07, 3 December 2009 (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.

• "given your history of disruptive behaviour"

1. can you point out a wiki rule where people are banned for past and closed events? Also from the ban reason geven to me, can you point out the word "past behaviour" i cant seem to find it...

• "repeated reversion rather than discussion"

2. if you had ever seen the talk page [8]you would have seen thai i discussed it the other side did not.

• "you needed to revert immediately"

3.3RR rule non broken, no immediately or postponed reply noted among the wiki rules...

• "you offer a self-imposed topic-ban from Macedonia-related articles"

4. this is a funny one, you are not asking me to edit in conform of wiki rules, you are asking me not to edit certain taboo topics, wikipedia is a free encyclopedia or a commie regime?

• "defamatory content"

5. since when [missing citation] is defamatory content?

Ok this cleared out, breafly on the subject of dispute: if someone states a specific information like: "They are largely concentrated in the capital city of Thessaloniki" there must be a source of this information, so its normal and natural to ask [missing citation]. I got banned for this.

Frankly i dont care pretty much about wikipedia, since its clear that it cannot represent objective facts, when you ban people for asking for a [missing citation]... Im just having fun taking the failures and the hypocrisy of the admin machinery to the open.

lol I have just seen the shiny Achilles, mark of greek nationalism on the admins CIreland page, oh ho ho, jsut say so, i would not even try to argument...Alex Makedon (talk) 16:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to your queries:

1. See WP:BLOCK in the section Duration of blocks.
2. The point is to discuss and not revert. Posting to the talk page whilst edit-warring doesn't make it OK.
3. I don't fully understand your query here.
4. I'm not asking you to do that; I'm simply telling you that you are unlikely to be unblocked without some kind of voluntary restriction. That's a statement of how I judge other admins are likely to react; if you disagree then fine.
5. It's not. Thus there was no emerency that meant you had to revert.

The fact that you see a statue of Achilles as demonstrating nationalism says more about you than me. For what's it's worth, I'm British and have no connection with Greece whatsoever.

CIreland (talk) 07:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Ill summarize the facts 1. First I discussed on the talk page. 2. I asked for a [missing citation], i did not post anything eltse 3. I reverted once, back to [missing citation] needed, i did not break the 3RR 4. I get baned for 1 month+3months of topic!

Get baned for what?Alex Makedon (talk) 12:27, 4 December 2009 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

plain and simple content dispute, ask for quotes where objetivelly are missing, ban based on passed closed events discrimination, CIreland conflict of intrest 6th column

Decline reason:

Edit warring is an impermissible way to solve a content dispute, even one where I think you might have a point. As for it being based on "passed closed events", the edits in question were just three days ago. — Daniel Case (talk) 13:01, 4 December 2009 (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.

What edit warring when i did not break the 3RR rule? I reverted just once 18:34, 2 December, [9] after the "doubios edits" were ruled as plain content dispute [10] 18:07 2 December. so not even edit warring!

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).

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

---

Request reason:

plain content dispute, no 3RR broken

Decline reason:

You are blocked for edit warring, which can occur even if you are not breaking the WP:3RR rule. As you do not address the issue of your edit warring, this request is declined.  Sandstein  16:01, 4 December 2009 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

no edit warring, single revert of [missing citation] as a result of a closed admin noticeboard matter as "plain content dispute" that just after my single revert was re-opened. I don't care if it will take 10 or 10 milion admins to understand a single revert is not edit warring and you cannot ban for a single revert asking for [missing citation]!

Decline reason:

You were clearly edit warring. As you clearly are not able to understand this, there is no reason to unblock you at this time. Smashville^talk 17:21, 4 December 2009 (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.

Lets see discussed on talk page. asked for [missing citation] [missing citation] was reverted with no explanation or argument (vandalism) reverted once this.

where in the world you see edit warring and how on earth you imagine a normal wikipedia editing finction, that does not permit a single constructive revert!?

I repeat, i don't care if it will take 10 or 10 milion admins, or if i have to appeal to Jimmy Wales on this matter, fact is a single constructive revert askin [missing citation] where objectivelly you need it is not a thing to ban for!

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).

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

---

Request reason:

no edit warring, single constructive revert, askin for [missing citation]

Decline reason:

The reason for your block is not open to argument, and repeatedly posting the same denial is pointless. If you again make the same unblock request, without a sensible reason for unblock stated, I will prevent you from editing on this page. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 19:56, 4 December 2009 (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.