User talk:Eiskrahablo
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Surjection
Eiskrahablo (block log • active blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • user creation log • change block settings • unblock)
Request reason:
my account blocked twice without any warning, and I think I didn't deserve to be blocked because I am expanding the articles with credible sources directly from the official dictionaries sources, I didn't get any clear explanation on my first block, and now I experienced the same thing. Why didn't you just check up the validity of my edits before you blocked me? why are you not blocking the people who are trying to disruptively revert the article without any credible sources? I am asking for my account's block appealing. If you have something to discuss you'd better left me a message or warning first before you blocked me.
(Eiskrahablo (talk) 15:30, 27 June 2021 (UTC))
Editors are responsible for formatting their edits correctly. You did not and edit-warred to restore your changes. It's as simple as that - you were blocked earlier for the same exact thing already. You're also accusing editors of pushing "non-sense nationalism", when in reality you seem to be the one doing just that, including at parang, where you likewise have been pushing your changes on Parang (knife). You say you have "credible sources" despite not adding any (other than those in standard boilerplate templates). You better start behaving or your next block will not expire. — surjection ⟨Talk⟩ 15:54, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- I did formatting my edits correctly, but for some case the derived or borrowed terms are having the same lineage language source due to the historical matter. And I never start the edit war first, if someone need a detailed and further explanation due to my edits, they should've communicate it first in the discussion menu. And I receive zero communication approachement either it's regarding my edits or even my block. Is this really how the wiktionary works? I'm trying to give my best effort to develop wiktionary with the languages that I'm familiar with, 'cause apparently I learnt those languages and I knew the historical lineage and how those terms invented at the first place. I guess editors need to be at least certified as linguist or having proven experience in similar field, because some terms are not meant to be just written carelessly. And even if I only put the standard template, the validity still could be checked and proven anyways, cause that's mainly where the official terms are recorded. You could clearly see the other editor put the false and misleading linguistic sources, as example in the article of Parang, he/she took the Proto-languages source of Tagalog and change the "d" with "r" carelessly, while both are not cognate to each other, the "Parang" in Tagalog are having the Proto source of "Padang" in Malay, that's why I gave the distinguish template in Malay language "not to be confused with Pedang and Perang". As someone who care about the linguistic source and history, that kind of behaviour are really annoyed me. You better understand my intention first before accusing me "making a mess", cause apparently you didn't even checked the validity first before blocking me, not even trying to engage in any kind of discussion.(Eiskrahablo (talk) 06:33, 28 June 2021 (UTC))
- No, you did start the edit war. You were reverted, it's your responsibility to start a discussion on the user talk page or on a discussion room like WT:TEA. The undo button might seem tempting, but you simply have to keep your fingers off of it. I find it hard to believe that you'd think this is acceptable after already getting blocked for edit-warring once before. (And by the way, that was a partial block. You were only blocked from editing that particular page). Your edits are still badly formatted; you are misusing etymology templates which causes wrong categories to be added, adding transcriptions to completely the wrong places, omitting headword templates, etc, etc. "Proto-languages source of Tagalog" is nonsensical, because he didn't do anything like that - you'd know if you actually read the changes instead of just blindly reverting everything and restoring the mess that you've left behind. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 15:09, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- Why didn't you take the action to the other user? It's not me who started the reversion but I expanding the article instead. And of course it's hard for you to believe about this because you are not a native speaker of that language and you have no clue about that language history or even that term in specific. And you can't even give a clear explanatory to my prior block while I already stated that it was based on the official dictionary, but see what you do? You have no effort to even check my edits validity, but instead accused me as someone who "making a mess", like c'mon it's not that hard to check the credibility of my edits first. That's why I emphasize to editors to at least have the certification before performing any edits cause linguistic-related edits can't be done carelessly. If you think my format was bad, then why don't you helped the editors to fix it? I saw the other editor are nicely help me to edit my format and I thanked them afterwards. You are encouraging people to perform any kind of discussion on the user talk page or whatever, but did you do that to me? Did you even tried to engage in any kind of conversation asking me first regarding my edits or even at least giving me warning before blocked my user account? You did this twice, and your excuse are seem to be unfair and irrelevant. You accuse my explanation on proto-languages sources as "nonsensical" cause you simply didn't learnt it by yourself, and the other user is clearly doing the misleading edits, as someone who familiar with proto-Austronesian languages, he clearly made up his edits. You are blindly accusing me without even understand about what you are talking about. You'd better create a great communication effort and understanding regarding to this matter before blindly accusing and blocked someone with the nonsensical "making a mess" excuse. (Eiskrahablo (talk) 08:27, 29 June 2021 (UTC))
- The other user has a history of constructive edits. Your history is edit warring to restore broken pages to their previous form. Any comparison is frivolous at best and disingenuous as well as in bad faith at worst. Clearly you still don't understand why you were blocked, since 80-90% of your message is just trying to prove me wrong on the basis that I'm "not a native speaker of that language". — surjection ⟨??⟩ 11:40, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- Why didn't you take the action to the other user? It's not me who started the reversion but I expanding the article instead. And of course it's hard for you to believe about this because you are not a native speaker of that language and you have no clue about that language history or even that term in specific. And you can't even give a clear explanatory to my prior block while I already stated that it was based on the official dictionary, but see what you do? You have no effort to even check my edits validity, but instead accused me as someone who "making a mess", like c'mon it's not that hard to check the credibility of my edits first. That's why I emphasize to editors to at least have the certification before performing any edits cause linguistic-related edits can't be done carelessly. If you think my format was bad, then why don't you helped the editors to fix it? I saw the other editor are nicely help me to edit my format and I thanked them afterwards. You are encouraging people to perform any kind of discussion on the user talk page or whatever, but did you do that to me? Did you even tried to engage in any kind of conversation asking me first regarding my edits or even at least giving me warning before blocked my user account? You did this twice, and your excuse are seem to be unfair and irrelevant. You accuse my explanation on proto-languages sources as "nonsensical" cause you simply didn't learnt it by yourself, and the other user is clearly doing the misleading edits, as someone who familiar with proto-Austronesian languages, he clearly made up his edits. You are blindly accusing me without even understand about what you are talking about. You'd better create a great communication effort and understanding regarding to this matter before blindly accusing and blocked someone with the nonsensical "making a mess" excuse. (Eiskrahablo (talk) 08:27, 29 June 2021 (UTC))
- No, you did start the edit war. You were reverted, it's your responsibility to start a discussion on the user talk page or on a discussion room like WT:TEA. The undo button might seem tempting, but you simply have to keep your fingers off of it. I find it hard to believe that you'd think this is acceptable after already getting blocked for edit-warring once before. (And by the way, that was a partial block. You were only blocked from editing that particular page). Your edits are still badly formatted; you are misusing etymology templates which causes wrong categories to be added, adding transcriptions to completely the wrong places, omitting headword templates, etc, etc. "Proto-languages source of Tagalog" is nonsensical, because he didn't do anything like that - you'd know if you actually read the changes instead of just blindly reverting everything and restoring the mess that you've left behind. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 15:09, 28 June 2021 (UTC)