User talk:Cinque stelle

Hi Cinque stelle! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Please join other people who edit Wikipedia at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space on Wikipedia where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. We hope to see you there! talk) 04:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply ]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. See Personal_attacks_by_Cinque_stelle. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruption in the context of not making positive contributions (as discussed on ANI). If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Toddst1 (talk) 16:10, 2 September 2012 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

If the editor took some time to read the talk page at Tenedos they'd see I have been a constructive presence there. My refactoring was always done in good faith following WP guidelines. Second, it takes two to tango in so called "battlegrounds"... I think an indefinite block is an overstep in this case, considering another editor didn't even find it worth a simple block.

Decline reason:

I don't see a single improvement of the encyclopedia from this account, hence I don't see how unblocking you might help Wikipedia. Max Semenik (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2012 (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.

• That editor was me. However, I was noting that you were very close to a block, not that you were free of Dr. K's concerns, and that you were at the very limit - the blocking admin just thought slightly more differently than I. Refactoring comments, good faith or not, is never a good thing to do and is contrary to guidelines. Concerning a "battleground", comments like this edit summary are what we consider
  WP:BATTLEGROUND.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Fair, though I followed

WP:REFACTOR to "improve the clarity and readability of the page" and for no other purpose. Refactoring can indeed be a "good thing to do" if done to improve the page, as was my intention.Cinque stelle (talk) 18:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

No, here it only makes it confusing with the chronological order messed up. It wasn't a good thing to do in this particular situation.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware chronological order is more important than maintaining continuity of discussion. I refactored to move a separate discussion out of its "island" position surrounded by the greater discussion. I felt this benefited both discussions.Cinque stelle (talk) 19:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two things: You knew someone else did not think the same as you, and with such edit summaries this quickly gave the impression that you were only here to do

WP:BATTLE - if I were you, I'd let someone else do reformatting of the talk page if it was ever necessary.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

]