User talk:Restimp

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).

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

Request reason:

Blocked because of an edit war here and here started not by me. I ask for a revision of this block and because Wikipedia start a neutral investigation on it

Decline reason:

This account was blocked for sockpuppetry. An unblock request must be made from your original account. Favonian (talk) 16:26, 21 May 2011 (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.

Blocked[edit]

Please stop. This is now the fifth account of yours that has been blocked for abusive use of alternate accounts. See the message at User talk:Larastabata. Risker (talk) 13:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May I know wy are you acting like this?

As I'm a living person and not a disposable wikipedia user, I think i worth a reply. Instead of follow an impossible hunt on existent or non-existent sock, why someone in the English Wikipedia check the edit war started at the page? Why someone, aware of the historical matter and the many cited references, try to examine the voice in a historical, civil and neutral way? Thanks for a polite reply.--Restimp (talk) 14:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restimp/Larastabata/Marimbambito/etc...You are trying very hard to add unreliable sources to articles, and to promote a genealogy for this particular dukedom that does not bear up to scrutiny. You were removed from the Italian Wikipedia for the same reason. There are some solid indications that you have been removed from this project on several occasions in the past for the same reason. This is not acceptable. There are plenty of other places on the internet that will allow you to promote your own theories on this subject; this is not one of them. It is clear that your only interest on this project is to promote the Lupis family name in association with this particular dukedom and other claims of nobility. It is time for you to move on. Risker (talk) 15:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, non-sense and not-related assertion here. Sources (secondary, printed sources, I mean) cannot be defined "unreliable" without - at least - a neutral and independent examination. This should be the first goal for a so-called "Encyclopedia". Sources reliability cannot "change" depending to who cite them! I'm afraid we are facing one of the the well known Wikipedia "problems" refusing to check voices in a neutral matter, in front of edit war and/or "intestine" wars ... I must repeat: event if it happens, sources can't change there reality and reliability. And finally, if was true (and is not) that someone are trying to promote something about a specific subject/family, it is on the contrary asbslutely sure that someone have acted actively using wikipedia here and here to try to reach the opposite result ... Why wikipedia refuse to start a neutral investigation on it?--Restimp (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a review of your block, please use the {{unblock}} template. I will not be commenting further, nor will I be responding to emails from any of your accounts. Risker (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]