TheBIHLover
|
December 2015
edit
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Bosnian pyramid claims, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Bosnian pyramid claims 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 get 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. Doug Weller (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
An extended welcome
editWelcome to Wikipedia. I've added a welcome message to the top of this page that gives a great deal of information about Wikipedia. I hope you find it useful.
Additionally, I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily.
Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.
If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter.
Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.
I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Ronz (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Your recent edits
edit
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
- Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
- With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (
or 
) located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 12:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
December 2015
edit Hello, I'm Ronz. I noticed that you made a comment concerning content related to a living person, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, and this policy applies to article talk pages as well as articles themselves. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! --Ronz (talk) 17:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm not going to engage you on the article talk page further. I am absolutely serious about having you blocked for a short term in order to get you to stop making accusations against other editors and authors. --Ronz (talk) 17:33, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, I am using my freedom of speech. https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Free_speech
You do not have any right to block me when I am trying to figure out a soluotion with every editor on the talk-page. By the way, some people have also accused me of some things on the Wikipedia page. --TheBIHLover (talk) 17:38, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, but you don't have free speech here. This is an encyclopedia. See WP:NOT. --Ronz (talk) 17:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, sure. But I still have free speech in the talk-section where I can talk with fellow editors about the article. --TheBIHLover (talk) 18:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- Nope. I don't believe you've read Wikipedia:Free speech. See WP:TALK, especially WP:TALKNO.--Ronz (talk) 18:14, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Ok. The only thing I want is to have a good article, nothing else. Like I said over: By the way, some people have also accused me of some things on the Wikipedia page. --TheBIHLover (talk) 18:17, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- Great. Hopefully we can all focus on improving the article. If you feel others' comments are causing a problem, it's usually best to start by communicating directly with the them on their talk pages. --Ronz (talk) 18:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! --TheBIHLover (talk) 19:08, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions
editThis is for your information...
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, 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 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.Your comments on Talk:Bosnian pyramid claims
editHi, The BIHLover. I have some concerns about your comments on Talk:Bosnian pyramid claims, especially where you say "I would say that this article is covered with conflict of interest to slam the pyramids in Bosnia and Dr. Osmanagich".[1]. I'm not sure what you mean by "conflict of interest". Are you using the term in full awareness of what it means, or just at random? (Please click on WP:COI and read what it means on Wikipedia.) Because it sounds as if you're saying the editors who have added criticism to the article, or who have removed unsourced positive descriptions, have some personal or professional interest in downplaying Semir Osmanagić's theories, and that they are editing dishonestly in order to further their own real-life interests. Those would be very serious accusations. Please either explain which editors you mean and what evidence you have of their conflict of interest, or withdraw the accusations. You can't simply throw out character assassination at random. I'd also be interested to know what you mean by "we", when you say for instance "we are trying to change this article to something more objective".[2] Has there in fact been some off-Wikipedia coordination, or who are "we"?
(FYI, I have also asked RexxS if he has any evidence of meatpuppets being recruited via Facebook or similar sites.[3]) Bishonen | talk 19:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC).
Hello Bishonen. Yes I believe that there is a conflict of interest between editors that have written the article on the Bosnian pyramids. The reason behind my this is that they are adding articles, that are not academic checked (Sub Rosa, Hurriyetdaily etc.), while they are telling me that the articles that are supporting the Bosnian pyramids needs to be reviewed by academics. Furthermore, the only thing I want, is a more objective article. The article right now is only slamming the pyramids in Bosnia and Dr. Osmanagich. I would like if the article could contain the new discoveries and archaeological reports.
What I meant with we is all the editors that tried to change the article on Wikipedia and that are discussing this topis right now in the Talk section.
His claim that some are recruting people to make the Bosnian pyramid article more objective, is absurd. But, what I can tell you, is that people are sick of this subjective article and a lot of people have tried to change the Bosnian pyramid article and I know some of them. As far as I know, I'm the only one that is trying to change the article right now. After my attempt, I will probably write an article about the situation.
- OK, I understand what you meant by "we". But you're not answering my question about the conflict of interest accusation. "Conflict of interest" doesn't have anything to do with a conflict between editors. You didn't click on my link to Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest policy, did you? OK, I'll quote it:
While editing Wikipedia, an editor's primary role is to further the interests of the encyclopaedia. When an external role or relationship could reasonably be said to undermine that primary role, the editor has a conflict of interest. (Similarly, a judge's primary role as an impartial adjudicator is undermined if she is married to the defendant.) Any external relationship – personal, religious, political, academic, financial or legal – can trigger a COI.
So, are you accusing some editors of standing to benefit in the real world from making the article more negative? As it might be, for example: do you mean to say some of your opponents make money from criticizing Osmanagić's theories, or that they're married to a notable critic of his? Please respond to what I ask, don't change the subject. If you weren't aware of the specific meaning of the phrase, just say so. Bishonen | talk 21:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC).
No, I have read that article before. No, I don't think that the editors have made money for criticizing Dr. Osmanagich. The conflict of interest here is that some of them don't want this project to be true, for some reason, and they are slamming the Bosnian pyramids with the Wikipedia article. I have given you a good example: The reason behind is that they are adding articles, that are not academic checked (Sub Rosa, Hurriyetdaily etc.), while they are telling me that the articles that are supporting the Bosnian pyramids needs to be reviewed by academics.
It doesn't need to be conflict of interest. TheBIHLover (talk) 21:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- There are weak sources on both sides in the article, but the solution is not to add more weak ones in favour of the claims. And the fact remains that there are reilable independent sources refuting the claims but none supporting them. But this has been explained to you multiple times already. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- One other thing - the attitude that if people disagree with you then they must simply *want* it to be false is not an acceptable approach to Wikipedia. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Why are you using Hurriyetdaily as a source, when it haven't been checked by an acadmic? If that article can be added, then I can't see any problem to add the other articles I have given you. TheBIHLover (talk) 21:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
I have no evidence that there is conflict of interest, but I have spoken with some people that have tried to change the Bosnian pyramid article, and they have got into unpleasant situations with other Wikipedia administrators, which is not good. I would also say that calling someone idiot, is very unprofessional from the Wikipedia administrators. TheBIHLover (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- My reference to some individuals as idiots was not in an administrative capacity. In fact, as I have taken a position on the content of the article, I am prohibited from any admin actions anyway, as per WP:INVOLVED. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
You still called them idiots and used ad hominem, which is unprofessional from you. TheBIHLover (talk) 22:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not working here professionally. And yes, I think people who believe in "allowing the Earth to receive cosmic energy from the centre of the galaxy", in "Polycontrast Interference Photography", and that you can "photograph interference between photons and the human energy field", are idiots - that's just my honest opinion and I don't see why you would want me to be dishonest about it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Because you are using ad hominem. TheBIHLover (talk) 22:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Goodnight, sleep well. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
The same to you. TheBIHLover (talk) 22:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- OK, I suppose you don't understand my question, and you simply will not use the term "conflict of interest" right. I draw the conclusion that you meant no harm by using it. Forget it. I point out, though, that your assumption of bad faith from other editors ("some of them don't want this project to be true, for some reason") is very objectionable. Also, it's time you stopped arguing on Talk:Bosnian pyramid claims, unless you have something new to say there. You have proposed a new section, and so far nobody has agreed with with you. Please read WP:CONSENSUS; it's time to stop arguing that people ought to agree with you; if they don't, they don't. Try reading WP:REHASH (a section of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing), because you're starting to fit the description in it. Your latest comment here simply repeats your original proposal here; stop repeating yourself, because it's becoming disruptive and you're wasting other editors' time.
- As you stated above, "As far as I know, I'm the only one that is trying to change the article right now. After my attempt, I will probably write an article about the situation." Yes, you are the only one. I suggest you move on to the next step you have yourself outlined, and write an article about your view of the situation in some other forum than Wikipedia (not sure where you meant?) and stop pushing to get it into Wikipedia. You've exhausted all reasonable means, and have started to disrupt the talkpage by refusing to accept the obvious consensus. If you persist, I'll have to consider topic banning you from Bosnian pyramid claims, per the discretionary sanctions that you were warned about above.[4] Bishonen | talk 15:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC).
March 2016
edit When adding links to material on external sites, as you did to Talk:Bosnian pyramid claims, please ensure that the external site is not violating the creator's copyright. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website's operator has created or licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If you believe the linked site is not violating copyright with respect to the material, then you should do one of the following:
- If the linked site is the copyright holder, leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page;
- If a note on the linked site credibly claims permission to host the material, or a note on the copyright holder's site grants such permission, leave a note on the article Talk page with a link to where we can find that note;
- If you are the copyright holder or the external site administrator, adjust the linked site to indicate permission as above and leave a note on the article Talk page;
If the material is available on a different site that satisfies one of the above conditions, link to that site instead. Since you asked... Doug Weller talk 19:26, 19 March 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 Talk:Bosnian pyramid claims. Binksternet (talk) 13:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Blocked? Nice threats you got there, but I haven't promoted anything. TheBIHLover (talk) 13:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- You have promoted nothing but the Bosnian pyramid claims, which are totally bogus according to the scientific community. Binksternet (talk) 03:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- The BIH-Lover, I think perhaps you didn't read my previous message with your full attention. You have been topic banned per the notice below. Bishonen | talk 12:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC).
Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction
edit
The following sanction now applies to you:
You have been topic banned from Bosnian pyramid claims and all related pages and discussions for three months. This means that you're prohibited from editing this topic on any page. You're free to edit the rest of Wikipedia.
You have been sanctioned for persistent refusal to accept consensus at Talk:Bosnian pyramid claims. Compare my warning above: "You've exhausted all reasonable means, and have started to disrupt the talkpage by refusing to accept the obvious consensus. If you persist, I'll have to consider topic banning you from Bosnian pyramid claims, per the discretionary sanctions that you were warned about."[5].
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/Pseudoscience#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. Bishonen | talk 12:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Your topic ban has been reinstated, this time indefinitely, since you appear to have no other purpose on Wikipedia but to promote fringe theories about the Bosnian pyramid claims. You are free to edit any other topic on Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, why are you guys including articles from ordinary web-sites? Dr. Korotkov concluded that the level of energy activity in the area of pyramids and tunnels is within the range of beneficial effects, thus that it has a positive effect on the health. We could have included this is the article in a objective way. TheBIHLover (talk) 19:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
- The topic ban includes this talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Revert
editI have reverted your test edit at Talk:Bosnian pyramid claims. (I see our reverts clashed and you actually reverted yourself.) You are not technically prevented from editing that page, but are prohibited from doing so. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- TheBIHLover, there is a difference between a block and a ban. A block is a technical provision that stops you from actually making edits. A ban is a procedural provision that says you must not do what ever you are banned from. In this case you have not been blocked just banned from making any edits that pertain to Bosnian pyramid claims. Since you have not been blocked you can still make the edits if you try, but if you do there is a strong possibility of you getting blocked from making any edits. I would suggest you do not make any more edits to Bosnian pyramid claims the associated talk page or discuss the article anywhere for the next three months. Find a different topic you want to edit and work there for the duration of the ban. -- GB fan 14:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
In my opinion, I haven't done anything wrong and I understood that I wasn't blocked, because I tested it on the Talk page. Anyways, thank you for your answer. TheBIHLover (talk) 14:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- In my opinion, you've ignored what I told you. Don't test editing against the prohibition again or I will block you. Thank you for having started to sign your edits. Now please try to indent your posts using colons. Just look at what everybody else does: I used one colon here to indent one step below your post that I was responding to. To respond to me below, use two colons. That's the system, and following it makes conversations much easier to follow. See WP:INDENT. Bishonen | talk 15:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC).