LordRogalDorn
LordRogalDorn, you are invited to the Teahouse! edit
|
Hi LordRogalDorn! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 5 September 2020 (UTC) |
Edit warring notice edit
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.(KIENGIR (talk) 04:12, 12 September 2020 (UTC))
- @KIENGIR The talk page was used, however, concensus is impossible to reach due to the other user's arguing in bad faith. As proof for bad faith: I made an edit, he undid my edit and asked for verification, I provided verification. His reply was that no this is not true. I asked him to check the sources I listed and asked him to list the sources for the counter-arguments he made. He insisted that he is right, I asked him again to list the sources for verification. So far so good, but now the bad faith arguments start: he replied with an ad hominem instead of discussing the the substance of the subject itself. I told him I will not play his insults game and that he didn't still didn't offer sources for verificaiton. He then started lying, saying he did provide source, despite the talk page itself being proof for anyone to see that no source was listed on his part. I tried to keep it in good faith and asked him "where", his reply was "here". Everything posted on wikipedia has to be backed up by sources. This user is attempting to undo an edit without a legitimate reason when the sources outright contradict the previous stance that he supports. On one occasion, he admitted to this, arguing that there was a mass Hungarian immigration between 1940-1941 (to which he also didn't give evidence), making the 1941 census that he insists on keeping misleading. In short: it's impossible to reach concensus when the other user is arguing in bad faith. However, according to Wikipedia, concensus is not about unanimity but about addressing legitimate concerns. A concern not backed up by evidence can hardly be called legitimate. For the sake of the guidelines, I am continuing the discussion with this user, however it's unlikely that he discussion will reach consensus soon due to his uncooperative behavior. LordRogalDorn (talk) 14:44, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- LordRogalDorn, nothing of what you say can be immediately verified because you don't have evidence in the form of diffs. But regardless, you are failing to observe WP:ONUS with respect to multiple pages. That is a problem. The status quo ante version is the version that should be displaying while a dispute remains unresolved. El_C 18:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
EL_C, our conversation and our edits can be easily found on this talk page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hungarian_irredentism The diffs can be found on the edit section of the same wikipedia page. Which part of the WP:ONUS am I failing to observe? According to the link you provided me: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". Or restores material means that the one who undoes edits also has the responsability to provide a source for his undo, which is why we are having this impass in the first place. LordRogalDorn (talk) 00:57, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- LordRogalDorn, WP:ONUS reads:
The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.
You are not living up to that maxim. As for diffs, because you are the one making the claim, you carry the burden to refine the information with due precision. El_C 16:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)- In regard to WP:ONUS what else specifically you want me to do that I haven't already done? It's impossible to reach concensus with someone who refuses on the grounds that he simply doesn't like it and that he doesn't believe your soruce despite you already provide your source. He's just making blunt statements right now "what you say is wrong", "you are destroying the page", etc. Reaching common grounds after a productive discussion would be ideal, it's impossible to reason with sone who won't listen to reason or evidence. Please, tell me what else I should do? provide a source? already done. Try to explain him? already done. Try to reach a compromise? already done. What else can I do that I haven't already tried to do? At this point, he is simply filibustering, WP:BRD.LordRogalDorn (talk) 09:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions alert edit
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
El_C 18:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- LordRogalDorn, if the disputes reported here continue it is likely there will be some admin action. I recommend that you have patience when working on these topics. This is a difficult area. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:30, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Origin of the Romanians edit
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Borsoka (talk) 01:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- You did not revert in order to discuss this on the talk page. First time you undoed because they are already mentioned in the article. I reasoned that they are, but their quotes are not. The second time you undoed arguing that if I want to keep that quote, we should mention other Humanist scholars who thought that the Hungarians were descended from the ancient Scythians. I replied saying that I am in favor of that, I won't undo you if you do it. Then you undoed simply saying WP:Source. I asked you to be more specific, and only then we discussed it on the talk page. We both stopped the edit-war at that point. We talked, turns out WP:Source allows you to use in certain conditions that are met here. Then you said "sorry, I stop discussing this issue with you, because we reached a stalemate" and falsely stated in the undo "OR (as per Talk page)". When we did not agree to such a thing on the talk page. It wasn't original reserach. Then you kept insisting OR. And so on. So, who's breaking the policy? I understand that you disagree, which is why I support your choice to present this to the noticeboard. But don't state your reason for undoing as "OR" when you know it was not OR.LordRogalDorn (talk) 10:11, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- Which WP policy I broke?LordRogalDorn (talk) 07:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, I do not want to play this game of yours. The relevant policies are mentioned and quoted on the relevant Talk page. Borsoka (talk) 09:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- What game? I merely asked you which WP policy I broke. The relevant policies on the talk page were already discussed. WP:Source allows you to use primary sources in certain conditions that are met here. LordRogalDorn (talk) 14:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, I do not want to play this game of yours. The relevant policies are mentioned and quoted on the relevant Talk page. Borsoka (talk) 09:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Which WP policy I broke?LordRogalDorn (talk) 07:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion edit
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Borsoka (talk) 01:47, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
September 2020 edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Salvio 11:39, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
LordRogalDorn (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The reason I am blocked is because I engaged in a slow-burning edit war. But by the time I made the edits that I got blocked for, it has already been 3 days since the other user stopped replying on the talk page - [last message on the talk page], and he didn't present me any intention to continue the discussion, such as talking to me in private or on my talk page, meaning it was no longer an edit war. :The other user simply and unambiguously lied when he said that ["three editors from three countries have been explaining a basic rule to him for days"] hoping to win the argument with a bandwagon fallacy, as you can see: [[1]] and [[2]] the other 2 users did not do such a thing that he claims they have done. As you can see from the diffs, it was far "from days", and only 1 user said in only 1 comment without further explainations or stances that we don't use older sources as far as secondary sources are concerned, primary sourced on the other hand, are by their very nature old. And the last user did not even side with him. So his claim that "three editors from three countries have been explaining a basic rule to him for days" is a blunt lie. I had no time to give this response in the report because by the time he made the false accusation and I came back the sentence was already set. :This second lie was that "we do not fill articles with lengthy quotes from arbitrarily choosen 16th-century historians' books without establishing the quotes' relevance with a reference to a peer-reviewed work" since he was aware that [[3]] the sources I added do not contradict those of modern scholars. They are relevant today as well as accepted by modern historians, it was already stated in the article that the views of modern historians are based on those humanists historians. Two of the already listed humanists historians, are those whose quotes I added. Their relevance was already established in the article. I understand that calling another user a liar is no small accusation, but I provided evidence for both of his lies, the diffs to show that what he's saying is not true. :I understand that the reason I got blocked is to protect the page. But there's no need for it, not only because as mentioned above there was no edit war anymore since the other user stopped replying for 3 days, he did not seem to present any intention to continue the discussion. But also because my edits were compliant with Wikipedia's policy. That's what this whole discussion was about, Wikipedia's policy. Wikipedia's policy states that "however primary sources may be used in accord with the WP:Primary rules." and WP:Primary states that "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge". The quotes I added pass both of these concerns: they are not personal interpretations and don't need specialized knowledge to understand them. I made no personal interpretation of those sources, I merely listed them. And I will post the 2 quotes to let you see for yourself whether they require specialized knowledge to understand them: "the Roman colonists which inhabited the region, living through various wars and tribulations and dispersed by fate, they became the Romanian people." - Szamoskozy. And "The sermons of all the Romanians are from the Romans, as they are Roman colonists: by our work, of great effort, we see their language is mutually-intellgeble with Latin… According to the tradition, Romanians are colonists of the Romans. This is proved by the fact that they have much in common with the Romans’ language, people whose coins are abundant in these places; undoubtedly, these are significant testimonies of the oldness and Roman rule here" - Nicolaus Olahus. Do you need specialized knowledge to understand the meaning of these quotes? I believe that you don't. :The sources of the quotes were properly listed: Stephanus Zamosius, Analecta lapidvm vestvstorum et nonvllarvm in Dacia antiqvitatvm, Francofurti ad Moenvm, 1598, p. 12. And N. Olahus, Hungaria sive de originibus gentis, regionis, situ, divisione, habitu atque opportunitatibus from 1536, in M. Bel, Adparatus ad Historiam Hungariae, Posonii 1735, p. 25-26. :In short, I believe the block is undeserved because the user who reported me already stopped replying on the talk page for 3 days in order to discuss the matter, therefore it was no longer an edit-war. What the user claimed during his report the are lies, as shown in the previus diffs, therefore his accusations are not true. And my edits are in accordance with Wikipedia's policy, as shown above, therefore I didn't break any Wikipedia rules with my edits. LordRogalDorn (talk) 15:31, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Procedural decline only as the block has expired.Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
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.
October 2020 edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Per this edit and others like it. "Stop lying about what sources said to get things your way, your low character is subject of Greek plays". EdJohnston (talk) 15:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
LordRogalDorn (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
There are multiple reasons. (1) My trial (if we could call it that) was unfair. A huge discussion took place here [[4]] between admin EdJohnston and user KIENGIR that I wasn't even invited to. He gave his sentence without even asking for my for my side of the story. Giving a sentence without even granting the right to defense, I don't think this is how justice works in any circumstance, it's not about court or this not being like a real life justice system, it's about fairness. Especially here where it took a long discussion even on 1 on 1. User KIENGIR was simply luckly to have been the first to talk with the admin. As he has made similar personal attacks, but obviously he is not blocked, because in the 1 on 1 discussion it's unlikely KIENGIR told EdJohnston about his personal attacks as well. (2) Double standards, the other user did the exact same thing that I got temporary banned for, personal attacks. But he didn't get temporary banned for his personal attacks while I got temporary banned for my personal attacks. This is preferential treatment. In handsight, I belive this is not EdJohnston's fault as its unlikely KIENGIR told him about his personal attacks as well. But if EdJohnston would have invited me to the discussion as wel as I started in (1), I could have explained this part to him. And (3) Concerning only the reason I was temporarily banned (as replying to the whole discussion here would be pointless), user KIENGIR is genuinely a liar, I am saying this in good faith and with evidence to back it up. I was not making a personal attack or ad hominem when I called him a liar, I was merely pointing out the fact that he lied and I have the proof to undisputably back up this fact. Here is the evidence of his lies: In his request for [[5]] RFC he said the following "Peer reviewed RS refer to the two official 1930 Romanian and 1941 Hungarian censuses and posit near equal the possible Romanian and Hungarian population in Northern Transylvania". That was his original claim, please keep it in mind. In a reply [[6]] I told him that "There is no peer reviewed RS which states their numbers was near equal, it's OR". He then replied [[7]] that "You are simply playing with words, I did not say states, I wrote posits, this is what they summarize, not taking sides". I replied that "The two 1930 Romanian and 1941 Hungarian censuses don't posit near equal Romanian and Hungarian population in Northern Transylvania. That is your own faulty interpretation". And he replied that "As well, again your lengthy speculation was useless, since I never said/suggested what you are saying "The two 1930 Romanian and 1941 Hungarian censuses don't posit near equal Romanian and Hungarian population in Northern Transylvania". So far so good, I am saying that he is falsely interpreting the sources, not lying, adding OR, he is saying that he doesn't falsely interpret the sources, and this is genuinely what the sources posit. I replied him that: "Hitchins is a peer reviewed RS, and he did not posit near equal the possible Romanian and Hungarian population, far from it.". And this is where his lie made in full awareness begins [[8]]: "Hitchins does not take sides (48%-50% is near equal, btw.)". Let's recap, he is arguing that "Peer reviewed RS refer to the two official 1930 Romanian and 1941 Hungarian censuses and posit near equal the possible Romanian and Hungarian population in Northern Transylvania" because "Hitchins does not take sides (48%-50% is near equal, btw.)". While in reality, Hitchins refers to the population of Romanians as being 48%-50%. And he was aware of this. Because he said in the original RFC request: "at the same time added the Hitchins quote copied from the earlier mentioned article, which is exactly reflecting the neutral approach based on the two censuses, not taking sides". He is aware about Hitchins' text and deliberately misinterpret it. So naturally, I called out his lying [[9]] with the actual quote as evidence of his lying next to it. This is Hitchins' quote: "Some 1,150,000 to 1,300,000 Romanians, or 48 per cent to over 50 per cent of the population of the ceded territory, depending upon whose statistics are used". He replied with "thank you for your confirmation that 48 and 50 (and their counterparts, 52 and 50 or other little deteriorations) are very near to each other". And I replied with: "He did not say that the other 50% and 52% were Hungarians". Then the admin discussion happened and I was blocked. He then said: "I did not say what you insist now, what I said may be read above, regardless of other ethnics, near approximations hold". What do you think after reading this about my accusation of him lying? ..... Summary, Paraphrasing: His original claim was that RS sources state a near equal number of Romanians and Hungarians. I replied that it doesn't, far from it. A vague and short exchange. He replied that 48%-50% is near equal (implying that this is the number of Romanians-Hungarians), when he knew what the source is actually saying. He knew that those 48-50% are both about Romanians, so it makes 0 sense to give that as an example for your "near equal" original claim. Please, explain me how this wasn't an outright unambiguous lie? After using the actual quote to prove him wrong. He insisted that with their 50%-52% counterparts, they are very near to each other (Implying that the 50%-52% counterparts are the Hungarians, since his original claim was "near equal the possible Romanian and Hungarian population", something that the source he is aware of doesn't tell). I called him a liar pointed out the obvious: that the source does not say what he is implying. A liar because he was aware of what the source actually says, and deliberately lied about the source in both instances. This cannot be the case of a mistake out of ignorance since he was fully aware of what the source actaully says, yet he said the source says otherwise. I called him out for it, and got temporary banned. Lying is a pattern for KIENGIR. If you request, I will point out other instances where user KIENGIR lied in similar ways. Again, I'm not talking about making a mistake or ignorance, I'm talking about unambiguously bad faith, proveable lies. But I guess this doesn't matter as it appears the bigger problem is me calling him out for being a liar, rather than him being a proved liar. I expected a bit more from a place about knowledge. ..... In short, I believe this temporary ban is unfair for 3 reasons: (1) I wasn't even allowed to defend myself, it was an 1 on 1 conversation between EdJohnston and KIENGIR, and the sentence was given without even a warning. (2) User KIENGIR being a liar is true, as proven above he really lied, an not in an "maybe he didn't know and meant well" way. If you think otherwise, please explain me how his 48%-50% affirmation wasn't an outright unambiguous lie. So I am sentenced to a temporary block for a truthful and proven affirmation. (3) If you don't care about the truthfulness of the sentence, but merely the fact that it was a personal attack. User KIENGIR made many personal attacks to me in our discussion as well, but I don't see him temporary blocked for doing the same thing that I did. Some would call this double standards, and then get an extra temporary block for pointing out the double standards. Initially, I believed this is preferential treatment from an admin, but because I wasn't invited to defend myself admin EdJohnston may be unaware of his own personal attacks. So my question is, why didn't user KIENGIR get temporary blocked as well despite making personal attacks as well? Please, put yourself in my position and think about how understandable and reasonable this ban is, I'm not saying you should agree with me, but understand things from my perspective. I just got temporary banned while not being able to defend myself, even if guitly, it stands to common sense that in a fair trial both sides should have a chance to defend themselves, it's about fairness and good faith. The reason I am temporary blocked, quote: "personal attacks", also being true for the other user but he doesn't get a temporary block in return despite doing the exact same thing I have done. It's double standards. Wikipedia talks about "assume good faith", but how can I assume good faith when this happens? Lack of good faith from an user was one thing and could have been considered an isolated case, but lack of good faith from an admin is completly another level. A valid and understandable counter-argument to point (3) about KIENGIR geuninely lying right there could be that "Wikipedia values politeness more than truth", but (1) not being able to defend myself, not being invited to the discussion or even getting a warning? and (2) getting temporarly banned for the same thing the other user has done while he doesn't get banned? really? would you still "assume good faith" in my position? LordRogalDorn (talk) 22:44, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Sorry, not going to read all that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
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.
- Administrators who want to review this unblock request might also look at the discussion at User talk:Salvio giuliano/Archive 91#Improper behavior, which was an appeal of his 25 September partial block per the edit warring noticeboard. Also check out the prior warnings on this very page, at User talk:LordRogalDorn, which are still in place above. I had previously held a discussion with User:KIENGIR on my own talk page, to which (admittedly) LordRogalDorn was never invited. I saw that thread as me giving advice to User:KIENGIR as to how he ought to pursue dispute resolution. The whole time I was aware that LordRogalDorn was getting near the edge of being blocked for WP:ASPERSIONS but I had previously warned him that it was likely there would be some admin action if the disputes continued. In fact LordRogalDorn and KIENGIR had both been warned on 12 September in a previous AN3 about Hungarian irredentism. In the closure of that complaint I had told him "It is risky to charge that another editor is lying", with a link to ASPERSIONS. EdJohnston (talk) 23:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- Admittedly, I did not take the hint that "It is risky to charge that another editor is lying" means that I will be blocked if I accuse another editor of lying, regardless of the validity of this claim. If I had known, I wouldn't have pointed it out, even when proveable, but would have used another language instead. I believed that you were talking about unproven accusations of lying out of nowhere, which is easy to see why these would be desruptive. I'm new to Wikipedia and the other editor making personal attacks gave me the impression that this behavior is allowed without any repercussions, that moderators don't care and it's the normal thing in a discussion here. I attempted a few times to keep the discussion only factual [[10]], [[11]], other similar diffs can be provided if an admin requests. But seeing that the other user did not respond in kind, I lost faith in such a method. While I believe the other editor's personal attacks were unreasonable and most of the time he didn't provide evidence for them, even when sometimes I actually asked him why he believes that, most of the time just making blunt statements about how I am X. I always took the time to provide evidence and examples for why I think my personals attacks about him were true. I only later realised that this does not have the intended effect of him changing his ways. For example: [[12]], as you can see my personal attack was backed by a through explaination with clear examples of why that is the case. Similar diffs can be provided if an admin requests. Concerning this last personal attack that I got temporary banned for, as mentioned in the appeal, I was saying that in good faith and with evidence to back it up, not in an attempt to besmirch his or her reputation, but in an attempt to stop him from further lying so we could have a honest discussion. My claim about him lying was supported and not exaggerated. I had a reasonable cause, as shown above. WP:ASPERSIONS mentions "without a reasonable cause" and "without evidence", which I had and posted on the talk page during our discussion. However, even if that does not matter and I should be banned, what I don't understand is why only I was temporary banned considering user User:KIENGIR has made personal attacks as well, but for the most part without a reasonable cause, explaination or evidence, therefore the double standards. LordRogalDorn (talk) 01:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- As a volunteer administrator, I'm not even going to attempt to wade through this massive wall of text, and I doubt many other admins will bother either. I suggest you replace your unblock request and summarise it in two or three sentences, clarifying that you understand what you did wrong, and how you intend to mavoid making the same mistakes again. Alternatively if you feel there has been some abuse of administrative power towards you, you are welcome to raise it(succinctly!) at WP:AN once your block has expired. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 07:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Voice of Clam, the reason there is a huge wall of text is because I needed to prove that the other user genuinely lied, as the reason I got temporary banned for is calling the other user a liar. I needed to show that it wasn't a random accusation out of nowhere but supported with evidence. The 3 reasons can be summarized as: 1. WP:ASPERSIONS mentions "without a reasonable cause" and "without evidence", I had both a reasonable cause to think he is lying (deliberately misinterpreting the source when I knew from our discussion that he had read the source) and evidence (the reason I made the wall of text). 2. I wasn't invited to the discussion that got me temporary banned to be able to defend myself. 3. The other user, the one I called liar, did the exact same thing I got temporary banned for, personal attacks, so it stands to fairness that if I get temporary banned for personal attacks he should get too, but he didn't. It's a bit of preferențial treatment to temporary ban only one user for a reason both have done. LordRogalDorn (talk) 09:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- As a volunteer administrator, I'm not even going to attempt to wade through this massive wall of text, and I doubt many other admins will bother either. I suggest you replace your unblock request and summarise it in two or three sentences, clarifying that you understand what you did wrong, and how you intend to mavoid making the same mistakes again. Alternatively if you feel there has been some abuse of administrative power towards you, you are welcome to raise it(succinctly!) at WP:AN once your block has expired. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 07:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Origin of the Romanians edit
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You were warned, you were blocked for a period for the same reason. If you do not stop this edit warring, you will be banned from WP. Borsoka (talk) 10:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- I was blocked for a different reason and almost a month ago. We had a discussion, you stopped talking for 2 days. I took this as leaving the discussion, so 2 days later I reverted the edit. You reported me to the admin and I got temporary blocked for that edit. I believed it was unfair so I talked to the admin who blocked me, turns out, I should have menitoned that I'm undoing that page in the absence of explicit opposition, which I didn't, so he was right to block me. He said that this is not a judgment on my merits, but only on the edit revert for unspecified reason, and the block is temporary so I can come back and continue the discussion after that. When I came back a few days later, another user took my old edits and reposted them, you opposed him just like you opposed me, he quoted a part of the policy and turns out he was right, then you did not oppose his edits for 15 days, so my original edits remained part of the article and became the new status quo. The policy is also clear: "primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia". LordRogalDorn (talk) 11:05, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion edit
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Borsoka (talk) 12:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 20 edit
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Carol II of Romania, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page King Ferdinand. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Your thread has been archived edit
|
|
Hi LordRogalDorn! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse,
|
Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction edit
The following sanction now applies to you:
You are indefinitely banned from all topics covered by WP:ARBEE, on all pages including articles, talk pages and Wikipedia-space discussions
You have been sanctioned for tendentious editing on the history of Hungary and Romania, and inability to work with others to reach agreement on talk pages
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.
You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. EdJohnston (talk) 17:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
The discussion leading to this sanction was at this AN3 complaint about warring on Origin of the Romanians. It might be reasonable to review this ban in six months if your editing outside this domain gives examples of you working successfully with others on difficult topics. EdJohnston (talk) 17:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
ARBEE edit
Please read carefully the notice above. If you ignore the above ban ([13]), you will be sanctioned more seriously. Borsoka (talk) 05:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- You still appear to be violating the ban from Eastern Europe by mentioning Romania here, in an edit on Wilhelm II, German Emperor. EdJohnston (talk) 19:39, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
December 2020 edit
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
If you evade this block or, when you are unblocked or your block expires on this account, use sockpuppets to evade your topic ban again you will be likely blocked indefinitely. Consider this your last chance. Do not edit using any other account until this block expires. Once this block expires, you may edit in areas which you are not topic banned from. I also suggest that you read read the policy on using multiple accounts (i.e. sockpuppetry) before you edit again.Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 21:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)- As there was more sockpuppetry discovered I have blocked your oldest account, L'grand Anonim, indefinitely for the reasons I state on that account's talk page. Because you are a confirmed sockpuppet of this user, you will need to appeal using that account. Until that account is unblocked, you may not edit using any account or IP address, as that is block evasion. Doing so will lead to those accounts being blocked and your edits reverted. This supersedes my above block, but your topic ban is still in place. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 23:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)