Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:54, 17 May 2009

Welcome!

Hello, Ninguém, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Misplaced Pages Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question, ask me or a helper Commander Keane on our talk page. Again, welcome!

If you want to tell me something or if you just want to say hi, leave your message under the Talk Section of | My Talk Page

Anonymous anonymous 09:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Dalton Trevisan

A tag has been placed on Dalton Trevisan requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Misplaced Pages:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 20:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

White Brazilian article

Please, you cannot remove informations, as you did in the article White Brazilian. You also included unsourced informations and flooded the talk page of that article with unnecessary arguments. You also are creating an edit-warring in that article. This can be taken as vandalism. Opinoso (talk) 18:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

If you think the "demography by cities" section should be removed, this is your personal opinion. Once again, this is not allowed here. We actually do not care if you do not like that information or find it unnecessary.

You have unsourced claims. such as: "The hegemony of the Portuguese ethnicity in the White population of Brazil, however, has never been actually challenged" - which is again unsourced, since Brazil received substantial immigration from Italy, Germany, Spain and other countries. Most white Brazilians are not of colonial Portuguese descent, as you claimed, since post-Independence immigrants outnumbered the Portuguese who arrived prior to 1822. By the way, the Italian immigrants outnumbered the Portuguese after independence.

You seem to have a "pro-Portuguese" view, which is also not allowed. Please, read: Neutral point of view in Misplaced Pages.

You also claimed colonial Portuguese settlerd were not immigrants. Again, this is your personal opinion. You wrote Brazil gained its Independence in 1922. What a big mistake, please, read before posting.

You also removed "Spaniards" among the main group of "White Brazilians", even though people of Spanish descent outnumber people of German descent in Brazil.

Do not removed informations, do not included unsourced informations, do not create edit-warring. These are all vandalism and you may be blocked from editing. Bye. Opinoso (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, you are not being respectful, because even after I showed you your mistakes and unsourced informations, you keep with the edit-warring, I am contacting the administrators so that they can do something about. Opinoso (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

January 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on White Brazilian. 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. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 20:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

There is something wrong here. Since the reversals were started by the other poster, it shouldn't be possible that I reverted more times than him... yet it seems that I am the only one to be blocked. How did this happen?Donadio (talk) 18:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Stop vandalism at White Brazilian

Donadio, if you keep removing informations from this article and posting the "fact tag" in informations that already have a source, I will contact an administrator once again. Also, you are posting with this IP numbers (189.27.6.23, 189.27.19.95), witch are your sockpopets, which is also not allowed here (to use sockpopets is also a vandalism). Please, stop it. Opinoso (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration

I did a Requests for arbitration due to the conflicts you caused at White Brazilian. Opinoso (talk) 00:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Opinoso

Donadio, I'd honestly recommend you just report his personal attacks. Opinoso has a long history of personal attacks and he's been blocked twice already for it. I gave up trying to deal with him a long time ago. Just ring up an administrator at WP:ANI.--Dali-Llama (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 1 week

A week for disruption. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 04:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Portugese Misplaced Pages

Re : Misplaced Pages administrator's are elected per project. English Misplaced Pages admins have no admin power on the Portugese Misplaced Pages, and events there are only considered here in exceptional circumstances. Also, your edit violated WP:AGF. Please try to be less abrasive in the future. Thanks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

How to complain about broken links?

{{adminhelp}}

I have tried two different approaches - inserting a hidden comment, and placing a "citation needed" tag. But other editors reverse these changes, without fixing the links. What should I do? Donadio (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you please be more specific? What broken links? Which article are you talking about? SoWhy 21:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Article Rio Grande do Sul, has two broken links, in section "Main Language", links 11 and 12. Donadio (talk) 01:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure why they undid such changes... I did it now, I hope they won't revert me as well ;-) SoWhy 08:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I have noticed that some editors seem to believe a "fact" tag is some kind of accusation of inaccuracy...

Thank you very much! 189.27.11.224 (talk) 10:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Following my edits

I noticed your account in entrely used to look for troubles on the same articles I usually contribute for. Stop checking my "last contributions" page and finding ways for disruptions on them. If you keep following my edits, you may be blocked once again. Opinoso (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, once again: personal theories are not allowed at Misplaced Pages. When you change correct informations to incorrect ones, like this , another disruption. Plase, read carefully all the rules of Misplaced Pages, before posting. Opinoso (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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.

Wikiquette 20090214

I am composing this stern warning for both of you at this point, as we've already visited these issues in ANI in the past. Donadio, I've recommended that you bring your concerns before the WP:3O peers, for 3rd party opinion. Hopefully, this will help put to rest any content disputes that are ongoing at White Brazilian. In the meantime, I would remind you to;

• Remain civil,
• Assume good faith,
• Avoid personal attacks,
• In your case, also remember to not run afoul of the Three Revert Rule, and no edit warring.

Something that you might want to also do at this point is apologize for any misconceptions or slights that have been issued or perceived. I'm not saying that either party is guilty of this (far be it from me to be judge and jury, too many hats!), nor am I saying that you have to apologize to make this work, but it would aid in promoting the process. Edit Centric (talk) 07:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hey Donadio. I've removed your request from the 3O page for a number of reasons. The first and foremost is that you guys are way beyond a third opinion at this point. At least three other editors (not including myself) have given some form of an opinion on White Brazilian. I have posted on the Brazil Wikiproject to try to get someone from there to lend a hand, but you need to move to the next level of dispute resolution. You _could_ try for mediation, but I'm not sure if they'll take it. A request for comment might do you well, though. Best of luck. — HelloAnnyong 15:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Edits

Walking away is one thing. Deleting information from a Creative Commons project is very different. Once a new idea or string of words is on Misplaced Pages, it no longer belongs to anyone. NJGW (talk) 01:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• You CANNOT remove your own contributions in this manner. If you look at the text that appears above the edit summary box you will see the phrase "You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the terms of the GFDL*." - this is exactly what it says on the tin - once you've uploaded your text it is irrevocably released under the GFDL licence for anyone to re-use under the same terms. You cannot revoke this. Exxolon (talk) 03:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

I've blocked you temporarily in order to prevent you from single-handedly reverting all your edits. You are free to leave at any point, and you may even request to vanish (though this is often not necessary), but your contributions are irrevocably released to the public under the GFDL. You do not have the authority to prevent their use simply because you are displeased with wikipedia. I will watchlist this page and if you make a credible claim that you will stop removing your past contributions, I will unblock you. Alternately, if you feel that this block was made in error, you may appeal it by placing the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} on your talk page. Another administrator will review this block. Protonk (talk) 05:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Since I'm only one, while there are many people willing to enforce Misplaced Pages rules, it's useless to try a editing war to keep my contributions out of here. I would have to sue Misplaced Pages, but I really am not willing to waste time or money in this way. I don't know if this is a credible claim, but it is true. On the other hand, there is another poster here who claims that my contributions all amount to vandalism, so I probably can count on him, or his sockpuppets, to remove my contributions.

Thank you. Donadio (talk) 12:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

So, does the silence mean that my claim isn't credible, or just that no one is paying attention? Donadio (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oh. Well, not really. I saw it, but it wasn't what I was looking for. All I was looking for was recognition from you that you won't continue to roll back your own contributions or otherwise disrupt the encyclopedia on your way out. I was also doing you a favor and ignoring your legal threat. I'm not at all interested in your accusations about other users, sorry. Protonk (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

So, to be clear. I won't continue to roll back my own contributions, nor I will otherwise disrupt Misplaced Pages. Is it that? Donadio (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• Absolutely. Thanks. I'm sorry I wasn't more clear above. I didn't see any autoblocks, so please let me know if you have triggered any so that I may reset them (just use the unblock-auto template and someone should grab it pretty quickly). Protonk (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Donadio (talk) 00:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Many will understand you

Hello Donadio,

Your dispute with that other user has moved me. I too believe that he is some kind of sell-out which writes exactly what north-americans like to hear: that Brazil (and even Latin America) is a fully mixed-race country and that the only place in America where whites exist is the USA. (I totally support your edit concerning the Y- and mt-DNAs by the way). Of course, it's hard to make ourselves be heard in this "neutral" environment. But hopefully your efforts won't be vain. Unless they find a way to silently delete what you've done. I don't doubt anything these days. --Teajef (talk) 13:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Teajef. Take care. Donadio (talk) 13:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You broke 3RRR once again

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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.

Stop using Misplaced Pages as Forum

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussions you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages.

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions made on March 26 2009 to Rio Grande do Sul

your edits

This edit is not blended into the text and why not bring it up on the talk page first? Gwen Gale (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

AN/I thread

Could you explain why "Prank" makes sense as a header for this section? I'm having a hard time understanding why you've now reverted 2 users who tried to make the header more useful. --Onorem♠Dil 19:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I've already commented on it. He says 5, but acknowledges a source says up to 18, in one article. In the other article, he reverts someone who changed a figure to a number that the current reference didn't support. What's the prank? I still think this looks like a content issue, and that it appears to be premature to be at AN/I with it. --Onorem♠Dil 20:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

How is a perceived WP:OWNership issue a prank? What is it that needs to be fixed? I have no knowledge, or interest, in the topic...so I don't know or care what the correct number is. If 5 is common, and 18 is fringe, then I see no problem with their edits. Have you considered a request for comment on the issue? --Onorem♠Dil 20:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 17 May

You have been blocked one week for racist, offensive, and derogatory comments. See this diff] in the ANI thread. Wiki is consensus based and insulting other users does not help that effort. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I demand to be immediately unblocked. It is clear that I made no racist, offensive or derogatory comments at all. Donadio (talk) 22:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

This edit could easily be taken as such. English is clearly a second language for you, using Spanish racial invective in an English sentence is fraught with the likelihood of upsetting someone on a collaborative website. At the very least, you've been careless. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I quoted an invective in Spanish, I didn't "use" it.

And it is not even a racial invective, as the text clearly shows. "Macaquitos" because they like to imitate others' behaviour, not for some "racial" reasons that might be in eyes of the beholders. Donadio (talk) 08:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

So, unblock me now, and revert the slanderous block log. Donadio (talk) 08:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The way you wrote it in English, mistakenly or not, reads like a racial slur. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes? How does saying that some people call other people "monkeys" because they imitate still other people read like a racial slur?

It seems that the word "monkey" evokes a particular human "race" in the minds of some people here. May I ask, which "race" is this that is linked to monkeys in some people's minds, and why is this particular "race" associated with the word "monkeys"? Donadio (talk) 11:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I shan't be drawn into putting it, wholly in English, the way some editors understood it. I also won't be drawn into the way you're trying to flip this into a claim that those who were upset by your wording are racists. You'll need to acknowledge that your wording was taken as racist by some and that you'll be much more careful from now on. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's make it clear: by no means I said that Argentinians call Brazilians "monkeys" because they perceive Brazilians as part of a different race; by no means I suggested that Argentinians are justified in doing so; and by no means I associate the word "monkey", or the Spanish corresponding word, "macaco" or its diminutive, "macaquito", with any of the so called "races".

I don't see how anyone can have read what I wrote in such a way, and would like to have it explained to me, because if it is not explained, I cannot possibly know what I did that seemed wrong to others, and so cannot be "careful" to avoid doing it again.

(Here is the result of googling images for "monkey": . I see white monkeys, black monkeys, "red" monkeys, and monkeys of varied combinations of different colours.) Donadio (talk) 11:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

If you would enable your email, or email me through the menu on my user/talk pages, I'll be happy to tell you how what you wrote was taken as racist and understandably so. You won't be unblocked until you acknowledge what happened and say you'll be much more heedful when writing about this topic. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you try and make this a little more pompous-sounding? Peter Damian (talk) 13:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I've found this from the thread in Misplaced Pages Review. Surely it is obvious that (whatever else Donadio's crimes are, he seems to have a few) that "a pack of macaquitos, always trying (and failing) to copy the intellectual fads in the metropolis" is (1) an obvious employment of mention rather than use (2) is a clear reference to copying behaviour. (Surely Gwen Gale here should understand the Use–mention distinction). The arguments defending the block are pitiful. On the risks of being misunderstood - perhaps we should try and understand second-language users of English better and in any case, are we going to shame someone with a 'racist' slur simply because they may have been misunderstood. This is outrageous. Worse than any of Connolley's blocks by far. Peter Damian (talk) 13:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I have talked with Donadio by email and I believe he mistakenly worded his post and did not mean for it to be taken as racist. However, he has yet to acknowledge that he could have been misunderstood and has said he wants to leave Misplaced Pages and have his username changed. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Well he could have been misunderstood by someone who couldn't read properly, but that's no reason for blocking him and particularly not of accusing him of racist remarks. Whoever did this should apologise. Peter Damian (talk) 13:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

In fact it was Rlevse - it says on the log "racist and offensive comments see ANI thread". That is unconscionable, unless you are very sure of your ground. Can the block be completely erased and Donadio get a new identity? You should be ashamed. Peter Damian (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't block him and would not have done. I was hoping he would acknowledge that his wording could have been misunderstood and that he would be more careful, so I could go to the blocking admin, get a swift ok and unblock him. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Then Rlevse to do so. Complete overreaction to put it in the block log like that. It was incivility to react that way with an Argentine editor, but clearly not racist. 13:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, very much, Peter. It indeed seems I should apologise for being misunderstood, instead of the "misunterstanders" (whose English absolutely must be worse than mine, btw) apologising for misunderstanding me. I also, apparently, have to make a formal promise not to be misunderstood in the future. Very typical of Misplaced Pages. Donadio (talk) 13:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say that, at all. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you and Opinoso should make up, however. He is rightly upset about "the offense here is not against Brazilians, but against Argentine, which Donadio claimed they call Brazilians "little monkeys". This is offensive for Argentines. ". Peter Damian (talk) 13:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to help you get unblocked, Donadio. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Gwen did after all ask you 'to acknowledge' you could have been misunderstood. Peter Damian (talk) 13:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I "acknowledge" I can have been misunderstood. I honestly can't figure how a person with a reasonable English reading ability would have misunderstood me in such a bizarre way, but I "acknowledge" that I may have been misunderstood by Rlevse. Not by Opinoso. Donadio (talk) 14:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Gwen, if you didn't imply that I should promise that I won't be misunderstood in the future, I apologise. Can you explain to me - taking in account all you have already said about my English - what exactly did you mean by "that he would be more careful"? Donadio (talk) 14:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Peter, Opinoso is not Argentinian, he is Brazilian. Donadio (talk) 14:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

If you're aware that you could be misunderstood (and indeed you were misunderstood, so I'd hope you're aware of it now), it would be most helpful if you could also say (not "promise") you'll try to be more careful about how you word things. Please hold on a tick whilst I talk with the blocking admin. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Opiniso clearly said the slur was againt Argentines for name-calling. His nationality is irrelevant. Peter Damian (talk) 14:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

To Gwen: I always try to be careful. Sometimes I make mistakes; being misunderstood is easy, as you probably realise. Usually, when a misunderstandment happens, the person who misunderstands apologises to the misunderstood person, exactly like I did to you above. The opposite is not the rule, unless the "misunderstandment" is caused by a mispoke. Which I believe is not the case. Rlevse's misunderstandment was caused by perfunctory reading. Donadio (talk) 14:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, racial topics are very edgy here and there is little tolerance on en.Misplaced Pages for even hints at racism, since it's a widely collaborative website. This is to say, when it comes to racial topics and the use of racial epithets in posts, even as examples, it falls on the editor making the post to be very heedful that nothing will be misunderstood. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

What about the use of racial epithets in block logs, then? Peter Damian (talk) 14:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I have been careful enough not to be misunderstood. Misunderstandings in this case arose from bad faith (Opinoso), or superficial reading (Rlevse). Donadio (talk) 14:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Peter - that's a huge problem, especially considering a) Donadio is a real name, not an internet "persona"; and b) racism is a criminal offence in Brazil.

I demand to be immediately unblocked, that the slanderous reason given for the block is removed, and I would like apologies from Opinoso - who first called me racist - and Rlevse, who irresponsibly took Opinoso at face value. In Opinoso's case, in the absence of an apology, I will again him bring him into ANI, for this absurd personal attack, and I won't be satisfied with less than a week block - which was the result of his slander to me. Donadio (talk) 14:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I was about to unblock you and had written the unblock notice, but given the above post and the conditions you have laid down, I cannot. Please post an {{unblock|reason}} template if you would like other admins to review this block. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Gwen, why can't you? One of the conditions was to remove the offensive personal attack made by Rlevse (albeit unwittingly) in the block log. It seems reasonable to do something about this, particularly since the guy claims it is his real name, and that (since he lives in, or has lived in, or may visit) Brazil, he will face criminal action from the authorities for hate crime. Peter Damian (talk) 15:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

One reason is that she is no more capable of doing this than you are. Mere admins cannot alter what's written in block logs. By this I don't mean that doing so would break Misplaced Pages rules, I mean that there's no way she (or I) could do it. -- Hoary (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have made what you asked - acknowledged that I might have been misunderstood. I realise now that you meant something different - that I should acknowledge that I was misunderstood by my own fault. I would have to lie to do that, though, and it is something I don't do often.

The real problem stands - I was blocked as a racist, which is a false and grave accusation that cannot be lightly taken. The perpetrators of such calumny are free to continue doing as before, unless I - the victim - apologise to them. Again, it is typical of Misplaced Pages. Donadio (talk) 15:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Donadio, I think you were wrongly blocked, and have said so to the admin who blocked you. Let's work to get you unblocked. Then let's think about what's written in the block log. During this process, please be patient. -- Hoary (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, Hoary. I would like to note that I have been incredible patient in this whole process - it took me months of edit war and arguing in a Talk Page to restablish the fact that the Dutch invaded Brazil during the colonial period to the White Brazilian article. Thank you for your thoughtful imput. Donadio (talk) 15:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Gwen mentions "conditions". There are no conditions. I am demanding to be immediately unblocked. I am demanding that the slanderous block log entry be removed. One is not condition of the other. I am not demanding apologies, from either Rlevse nor Opinoso, nor are those apologies conditions for anything. I merely would like those apologies. Opinoso deliberately slandered me to get me blocked, and such slander was a clear and unjustifiable personal attack. I am entitled to represent against him in ANI; it's my right, and ANI exists (among other reasons) for this. If he apologises convincingly, I am willing to decline from such right; not otherwise. This is not a condition for anything. Is declining from this right a condition for being unblocked? Donadio (talk) 15:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

For me, bluntly, yes it is. I follow you down to and including "I merely would like those apologies." If you'd stopped there, I'd unblock you right now. As you didn't stop there, I'm not unblocking you. I'm not interested in Opinoso. I'm not interested in what you think of Opinoso. I'm certainly not interested in what he thinks of you. I'm mighty alarmed by the very clear indication that you want to continue your feud with him. It's a feud in which, for all I know, he's completely in the wrong and you're completely in the right; however, it's not what I or anybody else wants to see continued. You know very well that he is most unlikely to apologize to you, so quite aside from whether or not it's justified, the demand is utterly unrealistic. ¶ And now, I'm going to bed. I hope to wake to find that you've thought hard, appealed the block, been unblocked, and are editing intelligently, just as you were on that template talk page roughly 24 hours ago. -- Hoary (talk) 15:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)