User talk:Suitcivil133
SkyscraperCity
[edit]Hi Al-Hashimi, I really miss you on SkyscraperCity.com, specifically the Iraqi forum. Please come back! You haven't been seen since January 4, 2013. Check out the new posts and comments in Baghdad Cafe, I hope you'd like to contribute. IraqiPride9 (talk) 20:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 4
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dilmun, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eastern Province (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) 08:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Please come back!
[edit]You are missed on Skyscrapercity — Preceding unsigned comment added by IraqiPride9 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Citing Wikipedia
[edit]Sorry but an experienced user like yourself should be aware that wikipedia is not a relibale source. You cannot cite wikipedia itself for editing an article on wikipedia.
I was not using Wikipedia I was merely referring to the footnotes and references found on the Spanish Wikipedia page regarding the Copa Eva Duarte to prove my point. Those links were too long to post in the edit comment section.
See http://www.rsssf.com/tabless/spansupcuphist.html and RFEF's official page http://www.rfef.es/noticias/supercopa/conoce-antecedentes-supercopa)
Regards --Suitcivil133 (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
How are your sources valid and FC barcelona's official website not valid? Please do tell me! This issue has been discussed more than 100 times before so refrain from reverting anything. You have already broken WP:3RR.
My source is the official source. The Spanish Football Federation (RFEF). Not the English version of FC Barcelona's webpage.
--Suitcivil133 (talk) 16:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
December 2014
[edit]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on FC Barcelona. 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 that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
- 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.
You need a reference. You've now reverted it three times so you're bright-line. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I provided two references already.
RSSSF;
http://www.rsssf.com/tabless/spansupcuphist.html
RFEF's (Spanish Football Federation)
http://www.rfef.es/noticias/supercopa/conoce-antecedentes-supercopa) (official page)
--Suitcivil133 (talk) 17:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I have now created a talk page regarding this dispute and provided two references on all 3 pages;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FC_Barcelona
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_records_in_Spain
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copa_Eva_Duarte
How do I gain the attention of senior editors, moderators, admins etc. that will take a stand on this dispute?
--Suitcivil133 (talk) 17:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Many references have already been provided to prove that Suitcivils revert is wrong. This has been discussed more than 100 times. Sorry but it will stand. SupernovaeIA (talk) 17:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Nonsense. No reference aside from the FC Barcelona webpage (English version) and their "list of honors".
Vandalism by a possible sockpuppet unwilling to discuss this dispute on the talk page. See the latest 3 contributors on my page. I am very certain that this is the same person operating several usernames to give himself more credit in terms of this dispute.
It seems that there is no option but to take this matter to the moderators and admins.
--Suitcivil133 (talk) 18:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Lets not be childish here. The RFEF reference you provided, simply states that the last one was held in 53. Nowhere does it state that Barcelona won it. There are countless sources which state that Barcelona has two official Copa Eva Duarte cups, none more legitimate than their OWN OFFICIAL WEBSITE. [1] You need to let this go before you get banned for edit warring. Thank you Imperial HRH2 (talk) 16:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
1953?
[edit]There was no copa eva duarte at all in 1953/.. what are you talking about?
Yes, there were.
http://www.rsssf.com/tabless/spansupcuphist.html
http://www.rfef.es/noticias/supercopa/conoce-antecedentes-supercopa
Let me quote the official webpage of the RFEF (Spanish Football Federation and highest football authority in Spain) and their article above;
"Con la Supercopa de España nacida en el 82, la RFEF recuperaba el precedente oficial inmediato conocido como la Copa Eva Duarte que no se disputaba desde el 53."
"La temporada 1952/1953 fue la última en la que se disputó esta competición como consecuencia del fallecimiento de Eva Duarte de Perón."
I speak Spanish fluently. You obviously do not.
Also you do know that sockpuppetry is illegal on Wikipedia, right?
--Suitcivil133 (talk) 18:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I speak spanish much more fluently than you. And by this time its obvious that you are the sockpuppet and a pro barca fan, looking at your edit history. You that its illegal right? the table for the cups is for official titles. Nowhere it says barca had 3 copa eva duartes and they were official! Its clear that you dont understand spanish and are a clear sockpuppet vandal. SupernovaeIA (talk) 20:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
You don't speak Spanish at all. Otherwise you would have understood the link and the two quotes. You clearly did not hence the trolling. I am not a FCB fan but you are clearly a madridista just as you are very likely to be a sockpuppet. This matter will be taken to the admins and moderators and they will deal with you.
--Suitcivil133 (talk) 21:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC) No, they will deal with you. A pro barca fan and a sockpuppet vandal. I speak spanish fluently. You dont understand zero of this language. It also seems you dont understand english either! SupernovaeIA (talk) 21:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
How big a moron are you? The best you can do is to throw my correct accusations at you right back at me. Laughable and shows your low intellect.
"Con la Supercopa de España nacida en el 82, la RFEF recuperaba el precedente oficial inmediato conocido como la Copa Eva Duarte que no se disputaba desde el 53."
What do you not understand from the link I provided from RFEF's official webpage and those two quotes?
"Con la Supercopa de España nacida en el 82, la RFEF recuperaba el precedente oficial inmediato conocido como la Copa Eva Duarte que no se disputaba desde el 53."
"La temporada 1952/1953 fue la última en la que se disputó esta competición como consecuencia del fallecimiento de Eva Duarte de Perón."
Pathetic Nepali (lol) liar and sockpuppet. Don't write on my page again.
--Suitcivil133 (talk) 21:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Idiotic barca licker dhoti lololol and barca licking vandal.SupernovaeIA (talk) 22:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
This is childish. Stop vandalising the Barcelona page. The Spanish sentences do not say anywhere that FC Barcelona won the 53 Eva Duarte Cup. You should follow the offical website (http://www.fcbarcelona.com/football/detail/card/honours-football). And I have been to the Camp Nou trophy room and can confirm, there are three Eva Duarte Cups (but one of them was before 1947 when it wasn't official). They did not have one from 1953 like you claim, and neither does their official website. You need to calm down.Imperial HRH2 (talk) 16:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
December 2014
[edit]
Your recent editing history at FC Barcelona shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on FC Barcelona. 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 that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
- 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.
I started a topic after my second removal at the footy project. I am unwatching the article since you can mind it for vandalism and your ownership makes cooperative editing difficult. Merry Christmas. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:22, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
My edits do not aim to cause any disruption. Rather you are silent at the vandalism ongoing on 2-3 pages regarding Spanish football by the same sockpuppet that has even written on the talk page that you just wrote on (this very talk page) under 2 different users while clearly being the same person. Using biased blogs as sources (rathe than books) and pro-RM sports papers such as Marca, AS rather than neutral sources or just the RFEF (Spanish Football Federation), FIFA etc.
Second places have been included on that talk page for years without anyone bordering. I just took a look at the footy project page and nowhere does it say that it is not allowed. It just says that it may be appropriate. Now why should it be appropriate in this case? Does it bother anyone? No. Rather I would say that it is valid additional information. Moreover second places have been included on the RM page (nobody is complaining about that) and several other club pages of major clubs.
Regarding the Copa Eva Duarte then I have taken this case further (since you guys are somehow unwilling to accept the fact that the Spanish Football Federation acknowledges my claim on their very own webpage) and written to FC Barcelona and once the holiday season has ended in Spain I will receive a reply. Hopefully.
The RM fan sockpuppet has now removed the Copa Eva Duarte trophy (Football records in Spain) and claims that it is not official while it clearly is official and recognized as such by RFEF. Not only that but organized by them and considered the predecessor to the current Spanish Super Cup.
There is obvious bias here. What I have tried correcting has been the consensus for well over 1 year and was recognized by neutrals as well. Anyway I don't bother engaging in any more fights but the second FC Barcelona replies to me favorably their games will end as I then will have the words of not only the RFEF (highest football authority in Spain), the source that can ALREADY be found on the Copa Eva Duarte page on Wikipedia and FC Barcelona's very own webpage.
Thank you and Merry Christmas to you as well, Walter.
--Suitcivil133 (talk) 19:35, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Who are you calling a sockpuppet? There are multiple accounts because many people agree with me and the concensus is with me. I do not care for second place honours. Infact I want them on the pages because if we remove them then we would have to remove them from hundreds of football club pages. Thats just my opinion. However you have no right to include biased opinion on the FC Barcelona page (especially the Franco history and the inclusion of Eva Duarte Cups). I wouldn't mind if you had references, but let alone solid refereces, you have NONE. Even the official Barcelona website doesn't agree with you. I know it can be tough supporting a club which might not be "the most successful club" in Spain, or however you like to put it, but at Wikipedia we believe in references, facts, and legitimacy. I myself am a Barcelona fan, but we shouldn't be so low as to make excuses for our football club and use biased information. I'm bigger than that. Wikipedia is bigger than that. You need to grow up and stop reverting edits.Imperial HRH2 (talk) 08:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I am not willing ot engage with a obvious sockpuppet and liar. The so-called "multiple accounts" is one Nepali troll that was once blocked by Wikipedia 2-3 years ago but has now reappeared again.
I did not include that. Other editors did ages ago and that book is not biased. It's a neutral book. What you on the other hand are attempting to include is some blog (yes a blog!) without any references or sources posted by a Real Madrid fan on a Spanish newspaper. Is this a joke?
Now you are attempting to delete the Copa Eva Duarte which was ALWAYS considered as a official trophy by almost all editors on Wikipedia. Nice joke about you being a FC Barcelona fan. LOL.
Anyway keep vandalizing. In January I will get more time on my hand and all your nonsense will end. I will by then have got a reply by FC Barcelona, I already have that source from RFEF (highest football authority in Spain) and that other source that funnily enough is still used on the Copa Eva Duarte page. Meanwhile you can stick to your Dailymail and Marca (pro Real Madrid newspaper and biased as hell). Good luck with your "objectivity" FC Barcelona fan, lol.
--Suitcivil133 (talk) 08:37, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- This catalonian foolish clown is either on drugs or hallucinating on daytime! Lol im a french living in paris and dont even know who or what or where Imperial is from!! Even if Barcelona replies you idiot, the article will remain same.. dream on! we wont allow barca vandals like you! Its so obvious that we are different persons, imperial writes such a long replies, comments (which are useless to fools like u btw), and I just state what is true short and to the point.SupernovaeIA (talk) 17:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC) 16:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Right, so now we can all make up FC Barcelona's history. So biased. Just admit, you have fewer trophies and follow the official Barcelona and FIFA website, which state so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imperial HRH2 (talk • contribs) 09:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, a neutral book written by neutral authors is now "made up" history. Nice joke there. While your useless blog containing no references or sources at all written by a obvious Real Madrid supporter are now "facts". How funny. FIFA does only include major trophies. They are no authority with regards to domestic trophies as they have nothing to do with those. The fact is that the Copa Eva Duarte is recognized by RFEF (Spanish Football Federation) as a official trophy and as the predecessor of the current Spanish Super Cup. This has also been a consensus for years among senior editors. Somehow to pursue your obvious biased RM agenda (while shamelessly claiming that you are a FCB supporter just minutes ago when nothing could be further from the truth) you are hellbent on removing the Copa Eva Duarte trophy (which has been included for years) as this does not conform to your agenda.
And then you pretend to be all neutral. Besides the "most successful club in Spanish football" label should also be removed from both FCB's and RM's page. There was a consensus about that needing to be the case years ago but somehow it is still there.
--Suitcivil133 (talk) 09:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Edit warring
[edit]I've fully protected the article to encourage discussion this time, but if you continue to edit war, particularly on that page you will be blocked from editing. You need to discuss the issue on the talk page if someone reverts you, rather then revert them back. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Reference errors on 19 June
[edit]
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the El Clásico page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
December 2015
[edit]Your recent editing history at Copa Eva Duarte shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Vansockslayer (talk) 13:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Football records in Spain shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Vansockslayer (talk) 13:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
[edit]
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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Suitcivil133 reported by User:Vansockslayer (Result: ). Thank you. Vansockslayer (talk) 14:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
January 2016
[edit]Your recent editing history at Football records in Spain shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:SupernovaeIA. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I will. This user has been harassing me for weeks and calling me a vandal for upholding a consensus and providing sourced materials while he is engaging in vandalism by deleting sourced material in several Wikipedia pages for no reason whatsoever. 2 of those Wikipedia pages were reviewed by WIkipedia moderators who took my side. Not only this he is pretending to be a moderator to scare me away so I will not fight his senseless vandalism. I had to tell him to stop wasting my and his time. Moreover he is a multiple Wikipedia user. I will ignore him from now on.--Suitcivil133 (talk) 08:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
[edit]
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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:SupernovaeIA and User:Suitcivil133 reported by User:Sir Sputnik (Result: ). Thank you. —Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
[edit]
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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Suitcivil133 and User:SupernovaeIA reported by User:Sir Sputnik (Result: ). Thank you. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. - Continuing after the warning. I blocked your opponent last week.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Suitcivil133 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
SupernovaeIA is a pain in the ass, he should be blocked for life and you let me free to edit my article!
Decline reason:
You're certainly not going to be unblocked by including a personal attack in the unblock request. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
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? I did not write that. What is this nonsense?Suitcivil133 (talk) 22:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
If you added Inter-Cities Fairs Cup in the table put this competition last not in front of Uefa Champions League ! or between Intertoto and EuropeanSuperCup! Thanks!--86.121.105.77 (talk) 22:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
[edit]
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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Suitcivil133 and User:SupernovaeIA reported by User:Sir Sputnik (Result: ). Thank you. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:09, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. --Ymblanter (talk) 07:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Why have I been banned for 1 month when I am not a sockpuppet nor a troll (unlike my opponent) and solely upholding a several years old consensus while using a primary source (FIFA) to back my claim? This is beyond ridiculous. Why has the ban not been aimed at that article (Football records in Spain) alone instead of banning me completely from editing for 1 month?
Also why has this issue not been solved yet by the football community on Wikipedia? I mentioned a while ago that a body of objective editors could decide the fate of this dispute. You are not solving the problem by banning me or him. I for sure will continue to prevent vandals from disrupting historical facts on Wikipedia which is the job of every editor when faced with vandalism/incorrect edits.--Suitcivil133 (talk) 11:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- What is really ridiculous is that you do not learn anything. You have been blocked twice, and you still return to the same article and continue edit-warring as if nothing happened. What you are reverting is not vandalism, and you are thus not exempt from WP:3RR. If you are so sure your opponent is a sock of a blocked user, after your (and their) block expires please open an SPI and demonstrate this is correct. You did not even care to reply at the talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, blocked for the same ridiculous reason. Upholding a several old consensus using a primary source while my opponent (a proven sockpuppet) is bringing nothing new forward. He is simply wrong here. Not to say that his edit was full of grammatical mistakes and irrelevant information. If that is not trolling, I do not know what it is then. Am I supposed to just ignore such disruptive editing?
I already proved more than 2 years ago that my opponent is a former blocked user. I even contacted the administrators about this issue and they took my side. I also pointed out that he is a sockpuppet which was finally proven by the administrators as well recently. He has been using several users. Since sockpuppets are apparently tolerated nowadays pointing such facts out is pointless as he will just make new users. So I really don't bother anymore.
Last time I replied to the talk page I was told that only administrators are allowed to write there. Besides I have discussed this issue with my opponent on our respective talk pages long ago.
Anyway the problem/dispute is not solved yet. You have only accomplished banning me and my opponent. I mentioned a while ago (to you administrators) that a body of objective editors could decide the fate of this dispute. This has been ignored. Also my opponent (a sockpuppet) is not interested in facts as his user history on his accounts prove so to demand that I engage with him is too much considering that he is ignoring facts and making disruptive edits on his usernames, some of which I can easily prove although I find it a waste of my time to engage in such waste of time.
Also why has the ban not been aimed at that particular page (Football records in Spain) rather than on my entire activity on Wikipedia? That does not seem logical either. Anyway just ban me, I will just spread the word on Reddit to other editors so they will prevent that vandal and others from disrupting historical facts. Thus my persistence won't be wasted. It seems that you administrators are not interested in the truth here or facts which is a shame.
--Suitcivil133 (talk) 12:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: , @Sir Sputnik:
You really don't get it do you? Three blocks later and several administrators telling you that your conduct is inappropriate, and you still go back to the same behaviour. In any case, I've reported you to WP:ANEW again. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
April 2016
[edit]{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. - Your opponent has been already indefblocked, it seems that you are as hopeless as they. --Ymblanter (talk) 20:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Suitcivil133 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
"
So it turns out that I was right all the way yet I was treated unfairly and the only reason that I created this user during my 1 month ban was because my opponent had been using several users for several years unlike me!
I have essentially been banned for upholding a consensus while using primary sources against an opponent who had been using several sockpuppets for numerous years for destructive purposes unlike me. This is highly unfair and it is remarkable that the moderators could not take a firm stand in the beginning of the dispute and take my side which is and has always been the correct side in this dispute. When I got banned with Suitcivil133 my opponent began using his sockpuppets to continue his destructive edits on several pages which forced me to create this user (my second user) as the moderators were ignoring my pleas. This is an unfair ban as I am no troll but a Wikipedia editor for 6 years.
@Ymblanter: , @Sir Sputnik: , @Mark Arsten:, @Huon:
Help me out here. Ban me for a few months but forever is too harsh for my "crimes". I want to keep contributing to Wikipedia.Suitcivil133 (talk) 09:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Please include a decline or accept reason.
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.
--Suitcivil133 (talk) 09:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
[edit]
Hello, Suitcivil133. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)