SBC Guy

Ibn Warraq

Read [[1]] : He is clearly no serious scholar. --IbnTufail (talk) 13:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

No he is a serious scholar. Only orthodox and fundamentalistic Muslims take the line that he is not a serious scholar.--SBC Guy (talk) 11:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

A second time, I point your attention to Ibn_Warraq#Criticism

And let me add: Ibn Warraq could be right, but the way he presents things, makes them unscientific. Karl-Heinz Ohlig would be the better choice.

--IbnTufail (talk) 17:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

The non-Muslim Critics of Ibn Warraq are islamophile Cultural Relativistis.--SBC Guy (talk) 18:03, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I would say that both sides are right and wrong 50:50. Ibn Warraq is too eager to show that Islam is not true at all, instead of accepting possibilities for religious reforms - the other side is right that there are no proofs for the extreme view of Ibn Warraq but they do not see the valid criticism and the necessity for reforms. Please note that I did not call Ibn Warraq "islamophobic" but "anti-Islamic activist". This is not the same. --IbnTufail (talk) 18:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Islamophobia is only polemic term.--SBC Guy (talk) 11:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

So I did not use it. --IbnTufail (talk) 19:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not use it.--SBC Guy (talk) 16:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:Biographies of living persons

Hello. Please read our policy concerning biographies of living persons. We are not permitted to include information without a reliable source, which is why I undid your recent additions to Jada Fire. Thank you for your cooperation. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

October 2016

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Russia and Ukraine are covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBEE

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Be aware that changing the category on Holodomor so it is not a genocide is likely to be controversial. If a dispute occurs, there is a risk that admins may consider arbitration sanctions against anyone who is seen to be advancing a personal point of view. Discuss patiently and try to reach consensus. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

No, EdJohnston, it's not likely to be controversial, it is intentionally provocative, and has now been reverted as yet another demonstration of this editor's WP:POVPUSHing behaviour. In tandem with the use of talk pages for particularly inflammatory WP:SOAP, I would suggest that SBC Guy carefully read WP:HERE and get a firm grasp on what it and the relevant surrounding policies and guidelines mean... sharpish. (Note that this is the second warning for the month). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:19, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Eurasian Youth Union.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing.
It's time to stop. Changing content and categories under such pretexts regarding Dugin is unacceptable; this edit to the Dmytro Yarosh article is just remarkably over the top with in terms of how many repetitions of 'far right' you can manage in one lead paragraph; while this edit in the Reinhard Merkel article is both illiterate and disruptive, as well as a case of trying to push the legality of the annexation of Crimea because you've failed to push it on the main article. Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:37, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to promote something. Actually I only want to mention Merkels Views on the Incorporation of Crimea which is perceive and evaluate divergently. There is a German Scholar of international law who reject the Thesis of an Annexation of Crimea for example. My sentence was orthographically and grammatically correct by the way. I don't know what do you mean with illiterate.--SBC Guy (talk) 09:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

October 2016

Your recent editing history at Holodomor, Reinhard Merkel, Catherine the Great, Category:Crimes of the Communist regime in Ukraine against Ukrainians, Sack of Baturyn, Eurasian Youth Union, and Dmytro Yarosh 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.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:55, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising, as you did at Reinhard Merkel. Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:41, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

November 2016

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Holodomor are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:45, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Some of your recent genre changes, such as the ones you've made to Category:Crimes of the Communist regime in Ukraine against Ukrainians, Reinhard Merkel, and Eurasian Youth Union have conflicted with our neutral point of view and verifiability policies. While we invite all users to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, we urge all editors to provide reliable sources for edits made. When others disagree, we recommend you seek consensus for certain edits by discussing the matter on the article's talk page. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:09, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to promote something. Actually I only want to mention Merkels Views on the Incorporation of Crimea which is perceive and evaluate divergently. There is a German Scholar of international law who rejects the Thesis of an Annexation of Crimea for example. My sentence was orthographically and grammatically correct by the way. I don't know what do you mean with illiterate.--SBC Guy (talk) 09:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

This is not orthographically or grammatically. It is also using the article as a WP:COATRACK because you've been unsuccessful at promoting such POV content on other articles relating to the annexation of Crimea. You are also persisting in using edit summaries based on your personal opinion in order to revert to your newly added content rather than use the article's talk page (per WP:BRD) so that other editors can engage in the discussion, and the process of arguing for the inclusion of new content is transparent. So far, all you have accomplished is that the existence of his opinion is verifiable, but have presented no convincing arguments according to policy and guidelines. I, on the other hand, have consistently pointed you to policies and guidelines as to what encyclopaedic content should and shouldn't include. WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSIMPORTANT are not acceptable hooks on which to hang your personal preferences in any article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I made only careless mistakes which I have corrected. You insinuate only that I hand out my personal preferences but you have no instances.--SBC Guy (talk) 10:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use talk pages for inappropriate discussions, as you did at Talk:Puppet state. No more of this nonsense! Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Re Holodomor: I fully protected the article, and accidentally it was three days at your preferred version. That was your chance to go to the talk page and discuss. You did not express any interest in discussion. Other people did. Now the article was unprotected, and you resumed the edit-warring. I just reverted your edit. If you continue, I am going to block your account. Thank you for understanding.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:17, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Changing other editor's comments

See WP:TPO. Unless this is an alternative account belonging to you, do not change other editor's comments, even if you think you're assisting in fixing spelling mistakes, and you telepathically knew that the editor meant the "Soviet Occupation of Afghanistan" instead of the "Soviet war in Afghanistan". Are you Aaron Yehuda Wiesenberg? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

This was an old Account of mine.--SBC Guy (talk) 10:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

An "old" account of yours? Created on 10 October 2016, used twice - and exclusively for soapboxing - actually sounds more like setting up a sleeper account than an 'old account'. Do you understand WP:Multiple accounts? I have to tell you that any assumption of good faith is running out. You've been officially warned about about ARBEE sanctions, but are persisting with being disruptive both on articles and talk pages about sensitive areas of Wikipedia such as genocide, the middle east, etc. Do you have any other 'old' accounts? If so, you need to declare them. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

This is getting more interesting by the moment. Is this also the same account holder? I note that the Aaron Yehuda Wiesenberg account was blocked on German Wikipedia for disruptive editing. There seem to be some serious anomalies between dates of account creation (i.e., the Aaron Yehuda Wiesenberg account being created while the 'SBC Guy' account had already been created, and has been used continuously since its creation. We now have The SBC Guy created in May of this year involved on this user page... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)