User talk:QuidditchCup53: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:23, 16 December 2022

My Talk Page

Welcome to my talk page. Feel free to ask me any question. I'd be happy to collaborate and learn more about Wikipedia. I used to edit fandom wikias so I have some experience but Wikipedia is a more serious project. Wikipedia is responsable for a lot of my homeworks getting good grades, I want to repay the service. My Wikipedian hero is Ser Amantio di Nicolao who single handedly edited a lot of Wikipedia, he is a firm believer that information should be free, I am too. Wikipedia is not perfect, any serious historian would tell you that, but it's perfect for average people to quickly read something about a topic they are interested in and scholars to find sources for the domains they are interested in. It's policy that anyone can edit it means that it will not always have accurate information like Britannica, but it beats such encyclopedias which sheer scale which I think it's more important. QuidditchCup53 (talk) 18:57, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for continuing the disruptive edits of another (blocked) editor. Note that it doesn't matter if you are a different physical person, if you are indistinguishable from a sockpuppet then your account will be treated as one..

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Black Kite (talk) 20:40, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

QuidditchCup53 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Wow, I'm not mad just dissapointed. Isn't Wikipedia about free information?

On the page History of Transylvania, OrionNimrod wanted to remove Roman or romanized population chapter. Aristeus01 refused. They started edit warring, he was blocked for 1 week for edit warring. I'm not sure how Consensus works on Wikipedia, but wasn't OrionNimrod supposed to have Consensus in order to remove that part? He clearly didn't have Aristeus01 consensus but he is the one who got banned. In this case, all I need to be a sockpuppet of Aristeus01 is to also be Romanian, because the deletion of paragraphs that Hungarian histography disagrees with (even when German or British histography agrees with) are the reasons why I made this account.

I don't know what to say in my defense because I don't know what my fault is, that I also opposed to OrionNimrod's removal? didn't he need consensus for that? that I did exactly what Aristeus01 did? I did not edit war. But I believe the undo of OrionNimrod's removal was justified because he simply removed sources that disagree with the Hungarian nationalist POV. Mentioning the Romanians being present in Transylvania is problematic for Hungarians because they believe that the Romanians arrived in the 12th century, that's not what other historians believe. He simply removed the sources that mentioned those other historians. Wikipedia seems to have a whole article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view saying that "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic".

Would you consider that removing paragraphs mentioning Romanians, and only leaving the paragraphs that the Hungarian histography agrees with is "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic"? All the people that reported Aristeus01 were Hungarians, this is no a coincidence. Is the fair representation of all sources against Wikipedia's policy?

But anyway, my behavior alone, I seem to be accused of being indistinguishable from a sockpuppet, can I have a link with what guideline I violated? As I don't know who agreeing with someone who got banned means you are worthy of permanban.

Any historian with marginal knowledge of this region can tell you what is going on: OrionNimrod is removing content that's against the Hungarian nationalist POV. If "indistinguishable from a sockpuppet" means that I have to get banned because I agree with Aristeus01, you will ban a lot of people for no good reason.

Consider the absurd possiblity that Aristeus01 "the crazy guy" is right, what will that mean? It will mean you will ban everyone who is correct, while protecting OrionNimrod's disruptive editing. I thought Wikipedia was a place for discourse, but I never got banned without even a discussion. Heck, I had contradictory discussions about fictional characters on the Elder Scrolls fandom, and they didn't result in a ban, here, it seems that even hinting you disagree with the "establishment" is reason enough for a ban.

I don't think you should war edit, I think you should discuss, but I know OrionNimrod is not removing content in good faith and I know OrionNimrod needs consenus to remove a material (which he didn't get). If you ban everyone that disagrees with him, it means Wikipedia is not that much the place for free information as I thought. Like: "Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility" and then bam, insta-banned for having the same opinion as the guy who got banned.

I'm just dissapointed, I thought Wikipedia was something serious while the fandoms were for fun. But this, is just next level. QuidditchCup53 (talk) 21:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Administrator use only:

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=Wow, I'm not mad just dissapointed. Isn't Wikipedia about free information?

On the page History of Transylvania, OrionNimrod wanted to remove Roman or romanized population chapter. Aristeus01 refused. They started edit warring, he was blocked for 1 week for edit warring. I'm not sure how Consensus works on Wikipedia, but wasn't OrionNimrod supposed to have Consensus in order to remove that part? He clearly didn't have Aristeus01 consensus but he is the one who got banned. In this case, all I need to be a sockpuppet of Aristeus01 is to also be Romanian, because the deletion of paragraphs that Hungarian histography disagrees with (even when German or British histography agrees with) are the reasons why I made this account.

I don't know what to say in my defense because I don't know what my fault is, that I also opposed to OrionNimrod's removal? didn't he need consensus for that? that I did exactly what Aristeus01 did? I did not edit war. But I believe the undo of OrionNimrod's removal was justified because he simply removed sources that disagree with the Hungarian nationalist POV. Mentioning the Romanians being present in Transylvania is problematic for Hungarians because they believe that the Romanians arrived in the 12th century, that's not what other historians believe. He simply removed the sources that mentioned those other historians. Wikipedia seems to have a whole article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view saying that ''"representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic"''.

Would you consider that removing paragraphs mentioning Romanians, and only leaving the paragraphs that the Hungarian histography agrees with is ''"representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic"''? All the people that reported Aristeus01 were Hungarians, this is no a coincidence. Is the fair representation of all sources against Wikipedia's policy?

But anyway, my behavior alone, I seem to be accused of being indistinguishable from a sockpuppet, can I have a link with what guideline I violated? As I don't know who agreeing with someone who got banned means you are worthy of permanban.

Any historian with marginal knowledge of this region can tell you what is going on: OrionNimrod is removing content that's against the Hungarian nationalist POV. If "indistinguishable from a sockpuppet" means that I have to get banned because I agree with Aristeus01, you will ban a lot of people for no good reason.

Consider the absurd possiblity that Aristeus01 "the crazy guy" is right, what will that mean? It will mean you will ban everyone who is correct, while protecting OrionNimrod's disruptive editing. I thought Wikipedia was a place for discourse, but I never got banned without even a discussion. Heck, I had contradictory discussions about fictional characters on the Elder Scrolls fandom, and they didn't result in a ban, here, it seems that even hinting you disagree with the "establishment" is reason enough for a ban.

I don't think you should war edit, I think you should discuss, but I know OrionNimrod is not removing content in good faith and I know OrionNimrod needs consenus to remove a material (which he didn't get). If you ban everyone that disagrees with him, it means Wikipedia is not that much the place for free information as I thought. Like: "Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility" and then bam, insta-banned for having the same opinion as the guy who got banned. 

I'm just dissapointed, I thought Wikipedia was something serious while the fandoms were for fun. But this, is just next level. [[User:QuidditchCup53|QuidditchCup53]] ([[User talk:QuidditchCup53#top|talk]]) 21:23, 16 December 2022 (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=Wow, I'm not mad just dissapointed. Isn't Wikipedia about free information?

On the page History of Transylvania, OrionNimrod wanted to remove Roman or romanized population chapter. Aristeus01 refused. They started edit warring, he was blocked for 1 week for edit warring. I'm not sure how Consensus works on Wikipedia, but wasn't OrionNimrod supposed to have Consensus in order to remove that part? He clearly didn't have Aristeus01 consensus but he is the one who got banned. In this case, all I need to be a sockpuppet of Aristeus01 is to also be Romanian, because the deletion of paragraphs that Hungarian histography disagrees with (even when German or British histography agrees with) are the reasons why I made this account.

I don't know what to say in my defense because I don't know what my fault is, that I also opposed to OrionNimrod's removal? didn't he need consensus for that? that I did exactly what Aristeus01 did? I did not edit war. But I believe the undo of OrionNimrod's removal was justified because he simply removed sources that disagree with the Hungarian nationalist POV. Mentioning the Romanians being present in Transylvania is problematic for Hungarians because they believe that the Romanians arrived in the 12th century, that's not what other historians believe. He simply removed the sources that mentioned those other historians. Wikipedia seems to have a whole article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view saying that ''"representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic"''.

Would you consider that removing paragraphs mentioning Romanians, and only leaving the paragraphs that the Hungarian histography agrees with is ''"representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic"''? All the people that reported Aristeus01 were Hungarians, this is no a coincidence. Is the fair representation of all sources against Wikipedia's policy?

But anyway, my behavior alone, I seem to be accused of being indistinguishable from a sockpuppet, can I have a link with what guideline I violated? As I don't know who agreeing with someone who got banned means you are worthy of permanban.

Any historian with marginal knowledge of this region can tell you what is going on: OrionNimrod is removing content that's against the Hungarian nationalist POV. If "indistinguishable from a sockpuppet" means that I have to get banned because I agree with Aristeus01, you will ban a lot of people for no good reason.

Consider the absurd possiblity that Aristeus01 "the crazy guy" is right, what will that mean? It will mean you will ban everyone who is correct, while protecting OrionNimrod's disruptive editing. I thought Wikipedia was a place for discourse, but I never got banned without even a discussion. Heck, I had contradictory discussions about fictional characters on the Elder Scrolls fandom, and they didn't result in a ban, here, it seems that even hinting you disagree with the "establishment" is reason enough for a ban.

I don't think you should war edit, I think you should discuss, but I know OrionNimrod is not removing content in good faith and I know OrionNimrod needs consenus to remove a material (which he didn't get). If you ban everyone that disagrees with him, it means Wikipedia is not that much the place for free information as I thought. Like: "Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility" and then bam, insta-banned for having the same opinion as the guy who got banned. 

I'm just dissapointed, I thought Wikipedia was something serious while the fandoms were for fun. But this, is just next level. [[User:QuidditchCup53|QuidditchCup53]] ([[User talk:QuidditchCup53#top|talk]]) 21:23, 16 December 2022 (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=Wow, I'm not mad just dissapointed. Isn't Wikipedia about free information?

On the page History of Transylvania, OrionNimrod wanted to remove Roman or romanized population chapter. Aristeus01 refused. They started edit warring, he was blocked for 1 week for edit warring. I'm not sure how Consensus works on Wikipedia, but wasn't OrionNimrod supposed to have Consensus in order to remove that part? He clearly didn't have Aristeus01 consensus but he is the one who got banned. In this case, all I need to be a sockpuppet of Aristeus01 is to also be Romanian, because the deletion of paragraphs that Hungarian histography disagrees with (even when German or British histography agrees with) are the reasons why I made this account.

I don't know what to say in my defense because I don't know what my fault is, that I also opposed to OrionNimrod's removal? didn't he need consensus for that? that I did exactly what Aristeus01 did? I did not edit war. But I believe the undo of OrionNimrod's removal was justified because he simply removed sources that disagree with the Hungarian nationalist POV. Mentioning the Romanians being present in Transylvania is problematic for Hungarians because they believe that the Romanians arrived in the 12th century, that's not what other historians believe. He simply removed the sources that mentioned those other historians. Wikipedia seems to have a whole article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view saying that ''"representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic"''.

Would you consider that removing paragraphs mentioning Romanians, and only leaving the paragraphs that the Hungarian histography agrees with is ''"representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic"''? All the people that reported Aristeus01 were Hungarians, this is no a coincidence. Is the fair representation of all sources against Wikipedia's policy?

But anyway, my behavior alone, I seem to be accused of being indistinguishable from a sockpuppet, can I have a link with what guideline I violated? As I don't know who agreeing with someone who got banned means you are worthy of permanban.

Any historian with marginal knowledge of this region can tell you what is going on: OrionNimrod is removing content that's against the Hungarian nationalist POV. If "indistinguishable from a sockpuppet" means that I have to get banned because I agree with Aristeus01, you will ban a lot of people for no good reason.

Consider the absurd possiblity that Aristeus01 "the crazy guy" is right, what will that mean? It will mean you will ban everyone who is correct, while protecting OrionNimrod's disruptive editing. I thought Wikipedia was a place for discourse, but I never got banned without even a discussion. Heck, I had contradictory discussions about fictional characters on the Elder Scrolls fandom, and they didn't result in a ban, here, it seems that even hinting you disagree with the "establishment" is reason enough for a ban.

I don't think you should war edit, I think you should discuss, but I know OrionNimrod is not removing content in good faith and I know OrionNimrod needs consenus to remove a material (which he didn't get). If you ban everyone that disagrees with him, it means Wikipedia is not that much the place for free information as I thought. Like: "Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility" and then bam, insta-banned for having the same opinion as the guy who got banned. 

I'm just dissapointed, I thought Wikipedia was something serious while the fandoms were for fun. But this, is just next level. [[User:QuidditchCup53|QuidditchCup53]] ([[User talk:QuidditchCup53#top|talk]]) 21:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

@Aristeus01 apparently they think I'm you because I agreed with you on the History of Transylvania page. What can be done about this? I'm also not sure exactly what I'm accused of, impersonating you or also reverting OrionNimrod removal of content? you seem to be more experienced here, can you help me out? given my welcome committee I don't expect much, but who knows, maybe it was just bad luck. QuidditchCup53 (talk) 21:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]