Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:32, 26 September 2020

LordRogalDorn, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Edit warring notice

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[REDACTED] 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 Misplaced Pages, 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/Talk:Hungarian_irredentism The diffs can be found on the edit section of the same[REDACTED] 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

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 Misplaced Pages'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.

Template:Z33 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

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)

You should try to understand basic WP policies before editing. Otherwise, sooner or later you will be banned. Borsoka (talk) 11:30, 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)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Borsoka (talk) 01:47, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

September 2020

LordRogalDorn (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The other user simply and unambiguously lied when he said that hoping to win the argument with a bandwagon fallacy, as you can see: ] and ] 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 is 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 discussion 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 ] 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 4 days, he did not seem to present any intention to continue the discussion. But also because my edits were compliant with Misplaced Pages's policy. That's what this whole discussion was about, Misplaced Pages's policy.

Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 4 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 Misplaced Pages's policy, as shown above, therefore I didn't break any Misplaced Pages rules with my edits. LordRogalDorn (talk) 15:31, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=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 4 days since the other user stopped replying on the talk page - ], meaning it was no longer an edit war. :The other user simply and unambiguously lied when he said that ] hoping to win the argument with a bandwagon fallacy, as you can see: ] and ] 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 is 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 discussion 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 ] 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 4 days, he did not seem to present any intention to continue the discussion. But also because my edits were compliant with Misplaced Pages's policy. That's what this whole discussion was about, Misplaced Pages's policy. Misplaced Pages's policy states that "however primary sources may be used in accord with the ] rules." and ] states that "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 4 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 Misplaced Pages's policy, as shown above, therefore I didn't break any Misplaced Pages rules with my edits. ] (]) 15:31, 26 September 2020 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=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 4 days since the other user stopped replying on the talk page - ], meaning it was no longer an edit war. :The other user simply and unambiguously lied when he said that ] hoping to win the argument with a bandwagon fallacy, as you can see: ] and ] 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 is 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 discussion 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 ] 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 4 days, he did not seem to present any intention to continue the discussion. But also because my edits were compliant with Misplaced Pages's policy. That's what this whole discussion was about, Misplaced Pages's policy. Misplaced Pages's policy states that "however primary sources may be used in accord with the ] rules." and ] states that "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 4 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 Misplaced Pages's policy, as shown above, therefore I didn't break any Misplaced Pages rules with my edits. ] (]) 15:31, 26 September 2020 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=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 4 days since the other user stopped replying on the talk page - ], meaning it was no longer an edit war. :The other user simply and unambiguously lied when he said that ] hoping to win the argument with a bandwagon fallacy, as you can see: ] and ] 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 is 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 discussion 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 ] 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 4 days, he did not seem to present any intention to continue the discussion. But also because my edits were compliant with Misplaced Pages's policy. That's what this whole discussion was about, Misplaced Pages's policy. Misplaced Pages's policy states that "however primary sources may be used in accord with the ] rules." and ] states that "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 4 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 Misplaced Pages's policy, as shown above, therefore I didn't break any Misplaced Pages rules with my edits. ] (]) 15:31, 26 September 2020 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

• Requests for unblock