User talk:I vonH

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Maria Vladimirovna, Grand Duchess of Russia.

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon^{[omg plz]}

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 04:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC).

Your posts to ANI

Don't posts messages inbetween another editor's messages and their signature - it's confusing for other readers. responses should always be below the message you are responding to - not stuck in the middle of them. --Fredrick day 04:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User page

You have been told not to blank out the notices by an administrator. Charles 02:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are not an administrator and I have been told no such thing.I vonH 01:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have never claimed to be an administrator and you were notified not to blank pages. Charles 01:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are not an administrator and I have been told no such thing.I vonH 03:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you have been told to stay off my user page. Be told. I vonH 02:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is a matter of disruption of Wikipedia and abuse of editing privileges (by you), you must defer to the administration when it comes to keeping the evidence and notices on the user page. You are in no position as it stands to be ordering people around given your abusive edit history. Charles 02:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC) WP:CIV[reply]

Considering how many times you have been reported for 3RR- and YOUR abusive edit history- I'll take my chances. All I have asked is for citations in articles- if you have a problem with that, you know where to go. I vonH 02:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two reports have been rejected, both labelled as no vio, although you posted yours between blanking pages verbatim save for the most important part: No violation (the result of your frivolous report). As it stands, we have you, an abuser of editing privileges, abusing the citation tags to push an agenda (when you aren't blanking pages, masquerading under IP addresses or as "your husband") and generally disrupting Wikipedia while still managing to harass. Have a nice evening, Mr/Mrs Foxworth von what-have-you. Charles 02:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC) WP:NPA[reply]

But there were more than two reports in your history of editing, and countless rude posts much like the one above- which anyone can look up! No matter how rude you are, no matter what you do-you aren't going to get rid of us Charles- we are here to stay. I vonH 03:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Requests

When you add requests for citation add the month and year that the request was first made e.g. (Fact|date=June 2007). This way we can see when the request was first made and then if no references are provided then the claims can be removed. (see Wikipedia:Verifiability and Template_talk:Fact#How long should they be tagged.3F).dwc lr 17:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DWC LR,

I thought I had been doing that already, but thanks for the tip! I vonH 04:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.- I do think the articles I have tagged either need to have the citations requested or non-absolute statements should be used in their place. I vonH 04:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep you were adding the fact tags correctly but a bot kept adding the date which now were in July will say that and most of your requests were made in June before they were removed them with no reference added. As for the articles I think the best way forward is for neutral statements to be made like you did here and here.dwc lr 11:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think so too, unfortunately, Charles keeps reverting or deleting any changes made. So I fear things will continue this way for awhile. I vonH 06:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

This is to notify you that you have been blocked for 24 hours for stalking and harassing User:Charles, and tag-team reverting using a meat puppet. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 15:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Tfoxworth (talk • contribs • block log • creation log). As a blocked or banned user you are not entitled to edit Wikipedia. All of your edits have been reverted.

Details of how to appeal a block can be found at: Wikipedia:Appealing a block.

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).

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

Request reason:

I am not a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet. I edit articles I have knowledge of and interest in. As a married person my husband and I share similar articles and different ones. However, we do not always agree with or work on the same ones. Charles has been at least uninformed and at worst rude. He is the only editor who seems to have a problem with me due to earlier disagreements with my husband. Given the way he treats people here I would suggest he is the one who should be blocked

Decline reason:

It seems you do not understand our policy on sockpuppets. It is inappropriate to have your husband join you in tag-team reverting. See the meatpuppet bit of WP:SOCK. — Yamla (talk) 03:12, 14 February 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

We have not done so- please review

Decline reason:

Yamla is completely correct. You have both been involved in reverting Charles and those you claim to be Charles' sockpuppets and what you claim to be vandalism by Charles, none of which is appropriate. I consider this to be an indefinite block per WP:STALK. Mango juice^talk 05:33, 14 February 2008 (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.