User talk:Nierva

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Nierva! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! BigDunc^Talk 19:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Human rights section[edit]

I would recommend just remaining calm, withhold your personal opinion on the issue, and continue to rely on specific wiki policy. I believe your argument has merit, but would hate to see you get entangled in a contentious edit war. You have provided your burden of proof, now request theirs. Redthoreau (talk) RT 19:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

June 2008[edit]

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Fidel Castro, without explaining the valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Enviroboy^Talk_Cs 00:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR[edit]

3RR: You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Fidel Castro. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

Korean War[edit]

Please stop edit-warring. The source you have provided is extremely unreliable; if you really think it's usable, why don't you post it at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for the experts there to decide? Also, I'll warn you that you've reverted 3 times in a very short time today; if you revert someone else who removes the problematic text, I will not hesitate to block you for disruption. Discuss the issues instead. Parsecboy (talk) 22:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not the place to be threatening people. You have not been exercising in good faith demonstrated by how my motives have been questioned. Your obstruction with regard to the Korean War article has no basis in Wikipedia's guidelines. Nierva (talk) 23:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not threatened you, I have merely warned you that disruptive actions have consequences. I have also not questioned your motives. On the contrary, my actions on the Korean War article are solidly grounded in policies: WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. Parsecboy (talk) 23:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I take back what I said about questioning my motives. It was a different user who did that. Nierva (talk) 23:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am in the process of posting a request at the RS noticeboard to have the KCNA link evaluated. Parsecboy (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

YellowMonkey's arbitrary blocking of my account casts doubt on his integrity and good faith. He had blocked my account the previous month on spurious grounds; action by YellowMonkey had not been taken against those with whom I was in an edit war. After blocking my account, he proceeded to cowardly delete all of my additions to articles. These acts reflect not an aim to safeguard Wikipedia's integrity but a desire to censor views. My record shows that my actions on Wikipedia have only been constructive. His allegation that I am someone else's sock puppet is untrue.

Decline reason:

YellowMonkey (talk · contribs) is a checkuser, defer to his judgment as to this user being a sock of Jacob Peters (talk · contribs). Another checkuser could review. — Cirt (talk) 07:38, 14 October 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).

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

Request reason:

The methodology used by YellowMonkey is spurious because the IP address in concern is traced to "California State University Network" which must be used by thousands of people.

Decline reason:

Checkusers do not typically give the details and methodology they've used, to avoid having users correct the mistakes they made that helped us identify them. Checkusers are typically aware that universities are attended by more than one Wikipedia user, so I suspect that you are incorrect in your guess about the methodology used. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:06, 14 October 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.