Ideabeach
|
Ideabeach, you are invited to the Teahouse edit
|
Hi Ideabeach! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
Semir Osmanagić edit
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Semir Osmanagić. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 16:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Please review WP:BLP, WP:DR, and WP:CON as well. --Ronz (talk) 16:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- Stop lecturing and stop pretending anyone here is interested in edit wars with you. I edited Mr. Osmanagić's page once, and then again many days after the discussion on the article page about this man's hoax. So your calling it an edit war is an overstatement to say the least. But you just keep campaigning against mainstream science and fighting scientists like the European Association of Archaeologists or Wikipedia's archaeology editor Dr. Rundkvist, and you will cause trouble. Ideabeach (talk) 18:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- Nonsense.
- Ever look at WP:FOC and WP:BATTLE? It might be a good time to do so. --Ronz (talk) 20:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- There you go, you again used the "Nonsense" to begin your post. I understand you do it to enhance your point in lack of arguments. And stop trying to impress by endlessly misquoting rules. Did you read the rule that says don't push it with rules? The only one spreading nonsense (by fighting scientific and Wikipedia communities' consensus on "pyramids" and Mr. Osmanagić) is you. Not only that you falsely accused me of an edit war with you (see above) but you now also insult Wikipedia archaeology editor and expert Dr. Rundkvist by calling an original research his expert opinion on a topic of his expertise in which he has no personal interest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bosnian_pyramid_hoax#Requested_move. Ideabeach (talk) 14:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm very familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you would like any of the links and descriptions I've provided clarified, just ask. It can be a bit overwhelming when working on topics and articles about fringe topics.
- This essay is extremely helpful on getting up to speed on Wikipedia, especially if you're interested in working on fringe topics. I wish someone had pointed it out to me when I first started editing here.
- If you'll look at the history of the "Bosnian Pyramids" article, you'll see it is one of the first I worked on. This is my first and second comments on the talk page. Back then we had little information and lots of resistance from true-believers. The true-believers still drop by, but their edits are usually completely reverted because they contradict the relevant policies and cited sources.
- I've pointed out many times how the articles could be improved, and gathered sources to do so.
- I hope you'll help to improve the articles and work with the editors like myself that want to work with you. --Ronz (talk) 17:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Sure, after you apologize for falsely accusing me of edit war after only one reversal, and after you stop being pretentious. Ideabeach (talk) 17:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry you feel this way. So you won't cooperate with others until they apologize to you? --Ronz (talk) 21:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see others doing it. At any rate, you are doing it again: trying to divert the discussion (to other people now, as to other topics before). Ideabeach (talk) 17:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- "I don't see others doing it." What? You feel others aren't cooperating? So that means you won't? --Ronz (talk) 17:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see others doing it. At any rate, you are doing it again: trying to divert the discussion (to other people now, as to other topics before). Ideabeach (talk) 17:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry you feel this way. So you won't cooperate with others until they apologize to you? --Ronz (talk) 21:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- Sure, after you apologize for falsely accusing me of edit war after only one reversal, and after you stop being pretentious. Ideabeach (talk) 17:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- There you go, you again used the "Nonsense" to begin your post. I understand you do it to enhance your point in lack of arguments. And stop trying to impress by endlessly misquoting rules. Did you read the rule that says don't push it with rules? The only one spreading nonsense (by fighting scientific and Wikipedia communities' consensus on "pyramids" and Mr. Osmanagić) is you. Not only that you falsely accused me of an edit war with you (see above) but you now also insult Wikipedia archaeology editor and expert Dr. Rundkvist by calling an original research his expert opinion on a topic of his expertise in which he has no personal interest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bosnian_pyramid_hoax#Requested_move. Ideabeach (talk) 14:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Biographies of living persons edit
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Semir Osmanagić. Thank you. [1] [2]
"Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals." --Ronz (talk) 17:27, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- See below for answer to that false accusation. By the way, as I once remarked in the Bosnian Pyramid Hoax discussions, I now notice that after a month or so, and after your dodging that 6:1 vote you lost, you now slowly but surely are returning the Osmanagić's article page to again depict him as a distinguished scientist (with somewhat strange ideas.) Of course, this portrayal of the man is far from the truth according to mainstream science (the EAA petition) and you know it. But keep on doing it, I'm really enjoying continued exposing of all the trickery and ganging-up of certain Wikipedia editors, which seems to me like a trend by now. Ideabeach (talk) 21:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Semir Osmanagić edit
Calling anyone a criminal who has not been convicted of a crime is a WP:BLP violation. Please don't do that again or I will have to report you to WP:ANI. Your attacks on me are pretty silly as they show you haven't read my edits or some of my comments. But as we agree about Osmanagic in general, here's a site you might not have run across:[3]. And [4]. And [5] and [6]. I'm a director at the Hall of Maat. Dougweller (talk) 18:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Who said anyone was a criminal? I posted a news article on Osmanagić's mentor Repovac having been charged by the Bosnian Federal Police for embezzlement last July: http://www.federalna.ba/bhs/vijest/69164/video-zloupotrebe-polozaja-na-fakultetu-za-kriminalistiku. That's normally a high-caliber news. Look for instance all the articles on people charged for domestic violence, drug abuse, etc. No one defends their "human rights" by saying Wikipedia can't report on that as they have not been convicted yet. Why double standards in case of Repovac? So as you can see, my claiming that you play Osmanagić's (and now Repovac's) advocate stands on firm ground as it is proven time and again. Ideabeach (talk) 21:54, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
ANI discussion about you edit
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Ideabeach and "Bosnian pyramids". Thank you. No such user (talk) 07:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
October 2013 edit
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, you may be blocked from editing.
In a 2007 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user editing Balkans-related articles in a disruptive way. If you engage in further inappropriate behaviour in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article/topic ban. Thank you.
Please don't edit war fringe theories to encyclopedia articles. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- What consensus were you referring to when reverting my moving of Berislavić page? Consensus is established in a voting procedure. This issues is brand new so there has been no voting at all. So stop using false pretexts (lying) to push for your nationalistic Croatian agenda. Many are fed up with your nationalism in articles concerning the Balkans history. Bosnia is not a Croatian colony, and it has its own claimant to the throne of Bosnia. Your behavior is disruptive and if you continue misusing basic privileges you will be permanently banned from Wikipedia. Ideabeach (talk) 12:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Are you related to User:Reaubilya? Because you certainly seem to have conveniently continued their apparent crusade. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- Crusade? What an interesting choice of words. Because the Catholic buddy of yours from Mexico called me a "vandal" in the below. Such a strange language you people talk. You sound like some Catholic seminary students or priests or something. Hmm, are you?! Ideabeach (talk) 16:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at House of Berislavić, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Who are you calling a vandal?? You belong to a gang of Catholics (being a Mexican why the heck do you care about historic issues between Bosnian and Croatian nationalists?! Oh right, you feel for your Croat Catholic "brothers") And watch who you are threatening. Or did you really think I was going to take orders from you, or any member of the Catholic gang on Wikipedia?! You boys think you own the place. Keep thinking. Ideabeach (talk) 16:40, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Will you please stop saying these arbitrary hateful things? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:00, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. This is the second time you've engaged in a series of edit wars, parroting the same meaningless explanations in edit summaries as before. In addition, you've done almost nothing to apologize for your previous series of insults etc. Please take a moment to think about what you're doing, and come back once you've re-read the relevant policies and are sure you can to actually contribute something other than controversy and vitriol. If you intend to come back and repeat the same ordeal yet again, please don't. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Ideabeach (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This is not an edit war on my part as I'm the one who's trying to contribute, and you're the one who's doing total reverts (for example, can it be that ALL 20-some references are bogus? I don't think so.). At the same time you accuse me of parroting nonsense, but actually you parrot "no consensus! no consensus!" as you do total reverts while dodging any discussion in Talk of House of Berislavić and Ban Borić. A conclusion on consensus requires a discussion, as the diagram you pointed at shows, and discussion is done in Talk. So far, the Talk looks pretty empty to me, apart from that little diagram you pasted as a professor lecturing a student... As you can see, I didn't repeat my "Catholic conspiracy" rant. Fact is you're the one who's engaged in edit war and pulling the Argument from authority. Ideabeach (talk) 16:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I can see at least four clear reverts within a 24 hour period. This seems to be a fairly clear cut violation of 3RR, which is more bright-line than general edit warring. You've been warned about our edit warring policies before, so I don't see anything mitigating. I would suggest resolving your differences on the articles talk page before making any other edits. Kuru (talk) 17:17, 13 October 2013 (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.
{{unblock|reason=That '''is''' the point - how to resolve differences on the talk page if the other party doesn't want to discuss or even go to talk pages, instead using their blocking privilege as soon as they trap you (waiting for the 4th revert and - zap!) into breaking a regulation that they caused by not assuming my good faith? [[User:Ideabeach|Ideabeach]] ([[User talk:Ideabeach#top|talk]]) 19:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)}}
Hello, I'm Yopie. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:House of Berislavić that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Yopie (talk) 17:45, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, look how sweet. And what happened with the comments where I was called a "crusader", or where they called my posting of e-books from Google Scanning project "unverifiable sources" and "fringe", or where they parroted "no consensus! no consensus!" as justification for total revs while NOT wanting to discuss anything? What a case of selective memory. Ideabeach (talk) 19:26, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
As you have continued to evade your block as Tothon (talk · contribs)/165.254.183.4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and personally attack the ethnicity and religions of other editors, I have changed this to an indefinite block. It seems clear that you are not here to edit constructively. Kuru (talk) 00:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Evade? Indefinite? Toton?? Is this a joke?? Who authorized you to delete my second unblock appeal (to the previous, 72h block by Joy) that was posted right above? Both blocks by Joy were obviously cases of Wikipedia:INVOLVED#Involved_admins so you had to unblock. Instead, you deleted my clear-cut unblock request, and came up with this Toton character gig so that you can block me indefinitely? Smartly done, I mean how you did this. First provoke the "enemy" into a conflict by revising their contributions repeatedly without any discussion to make them frustrated. Then entrap the "enemy" right after 4th reversal as you don't assume the "enemy's" good faith. Finally, you make up a reason for indefinite block. Easy as 1-2-3. Hats down!! Wow what an experience. Good thing I had already reported you and Joy much before this and you're being investigated. Ideabeach (talk) 03:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Sockpuppet investigation edit
Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ideabeach, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.
Katieh5584 (talk) 11:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)