User talk:Bosnipedian

Order of the Dragon

Dear Bosnopedian,I must say some notes about your edits in article Order of the Dragon:

According to WP:CIRCULAR "Articles and posts on Wikipedia, or on websites that mirror its content, should not be used as sources, as this would amount to Wikipedia citing itself, a self-reference."
Common knowledge - you are in English wikipedia and average American/Briton probably don't know anything about King Sigismund, and of course, he know nothing about medieval battle in Bosnia. Take care about it.
References are not for me, but for every reader, so, my attempt for correct references is for help, nothing personally.
Read WP:NPOV.

Personally, in Bohemia is Sigismund called "Red Fox" for his treachery, and is one of most disliked Bohemian kings. But, on other side, for Hungarians he is one of "best" kings. so, is better to avoid personal/national views in articles, without proper references, as this can end in edit war and blocks.--Yopie (talk) 15:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. WP:BADCATS: User subpages that are draft versions of articles should be kept out of content categories. If you copy an article from mainspace to userspace and it already contains categories, remove them or comment them out. Restore the categories when you move the draft back into article space. --Yopie (talk) 15:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to message in my talkpage:

About self-referencing - because anyone can change every article. For example in Sarajevo I can change, that is on Mars, and in article Mars I can add Sarajevo. And now I can add cross references from Sarajevo to Mars and from Mars to Sarajevo...
Bracketing or "Wikilinks" are for better understanding of article, so you can simply write in Order of the Dragon, that was established after Dobor Massacre, and in Dobor Massacre you can add more materials, references etc.
About your subpage - this is allowed only in case, if these are against rules, as WP:BADCATS, because you added categories to personal subpage and this is not allowed. Simply, Wikipedia is not a blog or webspace provider.
You are right about self-censorship. We create encyclopaedia and many wikipedians (as you and me) are from many countries, so is necessary to be neutral.--Yopie (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Bosnian Royal Family"

Hello, Bosnipedian/Regionlegion! Rest assured that I have no interest in your subpages. Just be aware that using subpages for permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia is not allowed. Regards, Surtsicna (talk) 15:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snooping around and being nosy? Your subpage was in 4 categories (which is why I found it; the invented phrase "Bosnian Royal Family" attracted my attention) and it had to be removed in accordance with Wikipedia policies. I have the right to edit any Wikipedia article, just like you have. However, unlike you, I am not abusing that right. "An independent contributor to open sources"? What else would I be? A CIA agent who is conspiring against you? "Self-proclaimed lord of all Bosnia pages"? If that's how you call someone who tries to keep Bosnia-related articles factually correct, so be it. Now I would appreciate if you stayed away from my talk page, when using either of your accounts. Further personal attacks will be deleted from my talk page. Surtsicna (talk) 16:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

The full report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Bosnipedian reported by User:Surtsicna (Result: 1 week). Edit warring, personal attacks and abuse of multiple accounts (per User:Regionlegion). EdJohnston (talk) 04:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This 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).

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

Request reason:

It takes at least two to fight. I am not aware that the other party Surtsicna has been blocked for the same reason (edit wars). If not, I think my account should be unblocked right away. We are in a fun business encompassing fair play, are we not? As for the claim of "Regionlegion" connection, feel free to establish it in the manner in which claims are normally established.

Decline reason:

Per comment below. — Daniel Case (talk) 15:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Bosnipedian (talk) 14:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As reported here, checkuser Jpgordon has verified that Regionlegion is your sock. There is no need for you to be coy about the connection. Wikipedia does not exactly *need* new nationalist edit-warriors to fight over Balkan articles, so I am wondering whether your block should be extended to indefinite. So far we have seen no spirit of cooperation from you. EdJohnston (talk) 15:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This 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).

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

Request reason:

That is not addressing my request at all, in fact it sounds like dodging it in all relevant parts. My request was about evenhandedness. If that can not be guaranteed on Wikipedia then I was wasting quite a bit of my time; coy towards someone who dodges your request must be deserved too. Back to the issue: according to WP:CHK: CheckUser (...) can require considerable skill and experience to investigate cases even with the tool. On the admin talk page, the person you refer to as CheckUser expert, uses term "almost 100%". That reminds a lot of the lie detectors". We all know how that ended, becoming voluntary-only in most jurisdictions. I repeat: without knowing anything about the skill of your lie-detector "expert", I can say that your "CheckUser" is worthless. In response to your outcry for "cooperation": I can only say that spending weeks on writing what I thought would be a good article has been a pretty mighty contribution, by all reasonable measures. Of course, some value editing more, especially when they do not get a ban for engaging in edit wars while everyone else they report for engaging in edit wars with them -- does get banned. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark, especially when no one cares about the accuser probably creating own sockpuppet account called IconicBigBen and created 24 January (and getting endless warnings about his wrongdoings). But, curiously enough, he never got a ban so he can keep on doing what he has been so successful at doing: bashing the person who spent weeks actually writing a contribution wider and deeper than most editors do in their first attempt after a year of research to collect all the necessary data. By the way, everything you read in the article about the role of your motherland in Bosnia is more than true -- I happen to have considerably more "sensitive information" on that particular topic than the article would indicate. You may dislike it and feel hurt about it, but that makes you as nationalist as either me or the Serbian accuser. Simply, that is the world we live in, and encyclopedias describe the world I would think. Pretending that there is no nationalism means taking sides (of globalism). I on the other hand do not take any sides. I could not care less what you or your Queen or the Serbs (or the Pope for that matter -- no one has noticed that the article accuses the Church of many things around Bosnia also) thought about my article, as long as it is fair and balanced. But to attack one (potentially) valuable contribution like my article, which is what this Serbian guy has done 10 minutes after it was up (he probably followed me writing it from the start, as he had a lengthy attack ready-made), is something I could not find justification in any regulation on the Wikipedia. On the contrary, the nomination criteria for the Featured Article in fact do make an "almost 100%" (to cite a more famous editor) match with my article's characteristics. I could not believe my eyes when I saw it nominated -- that is when I realized that I had done a hell of a good job. I am very proud of it indeed. Now you can delete it if you like, and ban me indefinitely. The value remains, and people can read and they can think, as they have been reading and thinking, not only the article but the talk about it even more so. Cheers (coyly yours)

Decline reason:

I actually took the time to read this. I see absolutely nothing here that would make anyone wish to unblock you. Unfoundedly questioning the competence of a longstanding editor is definitely not the way to go about this. Smashville^talk 17:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Since Bosnipedian's unblock request offers us so little hope for any future improvement in his attitude, I've extended his block to indefinite. EdJohnston (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You invited this SDB agent on my talk page "coincidentally" when you were responding! Hilarious! MI6/SDB coalition is way too funny lately. Trying to provoke me? Dream on. Bosnipedian (talk) 18:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:CoatoOfArms_BoricevicBerislavic_noframe.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:CoatoOfArms_BoricevicBerislavic_noframe.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Rockfang (talk) 05:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Boricevic dynasts Bosnia sm.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Boricevic dynasts Bosnia sm.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. DrKiernan (talk) 08:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]