User talk:Asdisis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Your recent edits[edit]

Information icon 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:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Button sig.png) 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) 00:11, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Asdisis, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]

Teahouse logo

Hi Asdisis! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Nathan2055 (I'm a Teahouse host)

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:07, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:TPG and indent your comments[edit]

Please read WP:TPG and indent your comments when you post on a talk pages. It makes it difficult to follow a thread when all of your comments are not indented and you insert multiple blank lines between sentences. Thank you.- MrX 16:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Tesla[edit]

Just ask Director to list the sources that support his claim. Then list your sources. Whoever has better sources has the stronger argument and ought to prevail. And yes, scholarly consensus trumps a single primary source.--Atlantictire (talk) 13:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

Information icon 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:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Button sig.png) 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) 16:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Please sign your talk page posts and do not change time stamps[edit]

Stop

Please sign your talk page posts when you first write them by typing four tildes like this: ~~~~ Waiting for SineBot to add your signature and changing it later is disruptive. Also, you are not supposed to change time stamps. Please stop doing this. Thank you.- MrX 13:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. Sometimes i forget to sign and add a signature when I notice. I will try to correct it. Thanks for warning me. Asdisis (talk) 13:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Tendentiousness[edit]

Asdisis, you had your say at the Tesla talk page RFC. You had your say when you asked me to change my closure. You had your say at the ANI. Enough is enough. When you can't convince others with rehashing of the arguments again and again and again, you go beyond mere discussion. Please drop the issue. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 17:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

As I said, in my opinion this is a new discussion which does not contradict the RfC, in fact it goes along with it. If that is not the case in your opinion it would be advisable that you state that clearly in the discussion. That will close it, and I won't make any more suggestions. I do not understand why you avoid to give a clarification which would help the discussion a great deal. Asdisis (talk) 19:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Nikola Tesla shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. 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. Favonian (talk) 20:08, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

@Favonian:, I apologize. I'm a new editor, and I haven't yet had time to get familiar with all the rules. I supposed i can imitate more experiences editors who were doing the same thing. They reverted my edit with poor and invalid explanations so i reverted them. I guessed that I can do it as long as they do it. It seems that they intentionally lead me to breach this rule. However I note that i started the discussion on the talk page a day before the edit. I find that I was intentionally lead to breach this rule since the discussion was open, and I could have been warned there, since the editor who I discussed and who reverted me knew that I do not know the rules yet. I apologize once again. Asdisis (talk) 21:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Also, I would like to ask you your advice. I find that some people have teamed up and intentionally made a biased article about Tesla. Since they are the majority, their edits can't be reverted. Is there some way to fight that, or I should admit i can't fight them alone. Take for instance FkpCascais' behavior in This discussion. He keeps repeating his claims and refuses to give and source to support they, while on the other hand he accuses me on nationalistic agenda, although i presented numerous sources. You see that he does not want to work on consensus, does not want to clearly establish the dispute. His whole behavior is intentionally disruptive. I plead him to support his claims with sources, he refused. I tried to reason with him, he refused to answer a simple question (find "Again, please, focus on my question" quote from the discussion). Asdisis (talk) 21:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Balkans[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Balkans, 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.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

If you engage in further inappropriate behaviour in this area, specifically with regard to repetitive tendentious claims on Nikola Tesla's origins with no clear purpose that benefits the readers, but apparently disrupting Wikipedia to make a point as a "retaliation" for discussions where you were in a minority, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article/topic ban. Thank you. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

@Joy:. I was not engaged in inappropriate behavior. I haven't made a single claim about Tesla's origins. My requests are beneficial to the readers. I was in minority, however that doesn't mean I'm disruptive. In fact, I presented few dozens sources, that's at least twice more than all others combined together. Retaliation? You will have to further explain your allegations. Also, I haven't edited Balkans, could you explain that as well. Asdisis (talk) 23:27, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
You said that he should be delisted as a Serb from Croatia, and that the church his father belonged to was not the Serbian church. Given the mainstream opinion of him, *in Croatia*, is that he was in fact a Serb, these claims are just plain WP:FRINGE, or at best WP:UNDUE. This falls squarely under the provisions of the Balkans arbitration ruling because this is the kind of petty nationalist nonsense that is specific to Croatian-Serbian relations. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I referenced the discussions of ANI and RfC and only started a discussion and left for editors of that page to decide. Although I do not agree with the decision, consistency is important. One article can not tell the opposite of the other. Discussion about his father belonging to SOC which was created in 1920, decades after Tesla's father died and even after Austro-Hungary seized to exist contradicts common sense. I think that RfC is logical way to resolve this inconsistency. Again you will have to explain the rest of your allegation. I never put in question Tesla's Serbian origin. I should note that I find your attitude is lead by nationalistic agenda. I conclude that from your strong objections unsupported by sources. And your wrong allegations that I in fact have nationalistic agenda, and that I have some claims towards Tesla's origins. That is obviously false. I had not made a single claim about Tesla's origins. Your fear that i have is obviously driven by your nationalistic agenda. Asdisis (talk) 12:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid the entire pattern of your edits is indeed such that you appear to be putting in question Tesla's Serbian origin. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Please, show the pattern, and explain in detail. My explanation is that you have a nationalistic attitude and because of that you see everyone as a treat. I have been objective and some other editors, including you have been biased. Asdisis (talk) 15:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Badgering[edit]

Please stop repeating the same arguments and badgering other editors by responding to every comment that does not support your POV as you did here. As you have been told before, this is very disruptive. If you continue to use talk pages in this manner, I will bring the matter to WP:ANI, although I suspect an admin will block you before I even have a chance. You may consider this your final warning.- MrX 13:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the warning, maybe you can warn other editors for the same thing. Asdisis (talk) 14:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Show me another editor who has made 269 edits to the same talk page about the subject's nationality, in less than six weeks, and I will.- MrX 15:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Please, repeating of same arguments is not determined by number of posts. Read the RfC and you will see other editors repeating the same arguments. I was involved into discussions with editors who are lead by nationalistic agenda, thus I posted many comments. However i also posted several dozens sources, unlike them. Asdisis (talk) 15:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014[edit]

This is to inform you that there's is a post on ANI that may concern you. Regards -- Director (talk) 18:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Asdisis (talk) 20:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Randykitty (talk) 12:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

RFC challenge -- wrong page to post on[edit]

By adding into the IPs comments, and by ignoring the instructions posted in the section about the proper procedure to challenge an RFC closure, you are being disruptive. Please revert your edit. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 23:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC) To clarify, it is not proper to respond either way to the IP comments. The RFC is closed and we do not go and re-argue the issue again and again on the talk page. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 00:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for persistent disruptive editing, as you did at Split, Croatia. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Randykitty (talk) 10:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Asdisis (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

My edits have not been disruptive. I reverted Director several times, but I also opened a discussion. My conduct in the discussion was not disruptive, as can be seen in the discussion Here. I lead a perfectly normal discussion. Asdisis (talk) 10:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

On the contrary, your editing has been extremely disruptive. If you persistently edit war, you will be likely to be blocked again. If you continue with your practice of persisting in repeating the same arguments endlessly, after it has been made abundantly clear that consensus is against you, then sooner or later you are likely to be blocked indefinitely. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and 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.

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Asdisis (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

I made some reverts, however the main point of interest is the discussion I opened. I made no more than 3 reverts, and actively engaged in the discussion. The consensus is not against me, and I haven't repeated the same arguments again. Consensus has not been reached. I can't see how the discussion i led can be viewed as disruptive. Asdisis (talk) 20:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Based on your request, I think if I unblocked your account, you would continue in the same manner as you have done so far. I suggest that in future you should establish consensus on the talk page, and avoid edit warring. PhilKnight (talk) 22:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and 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.

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Asdisis (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

@PhilKnight What manner? I led a perfectly normal discussion. I made 3 reverts and that's all. After that I engaged in the discussion. I made those reverts on 13th of August. For two days after that I participated in the discussion. I stopped with reverts on time and engaged in the discussion. How could have I known that a discussion is needed for such a simple edit? After a few reverts, I saw that and stopped with reverting and engaged in the discussion. I also made less reverts than Director who was only warned. I'm now eliminated from that discussion and, since I'm the only major participant who supports one side of the discussion, the outcome is known. Explanations for banning me for as much as 2 weeks are vague. I haven't breached 3RR and I had led a perfectly normal discussion. I haven't engaged in edit warring. I only reverted Director because of his explanation that he is establishing a status quo pending a consensus. If you unblock me, of course I would continue to participate in the discussion. What is wrong with that? Consensus is exactly what I'm trying to establish by that discussion. How can I be banned because I haven't established a consensus in the middle of the discussion, trying to establish a consensus? Asdisis (talk) 01:13, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

It is odd that you claim that you were not edit-warring, but you describe your actions in a way that IS edit-warring. If you make an edit and it gets reverted, you do NOT get to revert or else you're edit-warring. The concept is WP:BRD. You do not have to hit a 4th revert to be edit-warring, your first revert was sufficient. Please CAREFULLY read WP:EW and WP:3RR - they are very different, although related. the panda ₯’ 11:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and 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.

  • You weren't edit warring? Here you are edit warring, from 24 July to 13 August: [1] [2] [3] [4]. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Asdisis (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

Still, I got 2 weeks and Director got only a warning, for more reverts than me. I described what happened. I stopped with reverts and engaged in discussion. I still do not know the reason for such a punishment. Asdisis (talk) 12:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You still don't get it, and it looks like you never will. You have a prior history here, and clearly violated 3RR; whereas it could not be determined with enough certainty that Director did. That's why he got warned, and you got blocked. It has nothing to do with who made how many reverts. Since you have continued to hammer away on this these across four unblock requests even though it should have long ago been apparent that you had no case (ahem), I'm going to have to revoke your talk page access for the duration of the block so you won't be wasting any more of our time. Thank you. — Daniel Case (talk) 18:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and 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.

Stop hand
Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

(block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If you have already appealed to the Unblock Ticket Request System and been declined you may appeal to the Arbitration Committee's Ban Appeals Subcommittee. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Daniel Case (talk) 18:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)