User talk:Iovaniorgovan

April 2018

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Nicolae Densușianu, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, content you added to Origin of the Romanians appears to be a minority or fringe viewpoint, and appears to have given undue weight to this minority viewpoint, and has been reverted. To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. Feel free to use the article's talk page to discuss this, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:12, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A summary of site policies and guidelines you may find useful

Please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~, found next to the 1 key), and please do not alter other's comments.
"Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
We do not publish original thought nor original research. We merely summarize reliable sources without elaboration or interpretation.
Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. This usually means that secular academia is given prominence over any individual sect's doctrines, though those doctrines may be discussed in an appropriate section that clearly labels those beliefs for what they are.

Reformulated:

"Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
A subject is considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence. In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
Material must be proportionate to what is found in the source cited. If a source makes a small claim and presents two larger counter claims, the material it supports should present one claim and two counter claims instead of presenting the one claim as extremely large while excluding or downplaying the counter claims.
We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.

Also, not a policy or guideline, but something important to understand the above policies and guidelines: Wikipedia operates off of objective information, which is information that multiple persons can examine and agree upon. It does not include subjective information, which only an individual can know from an "inner" or personal experience. Most religious beliefs fall under subjective information. Wikipedia may document objective statements about notable subjective claims (i.e. "Christians believe Jesus is divine"), but it does not pretend that subjective statements are objective, and will expose false statements masquerading as subjective beliefs (cf. Indigo children).

You may also want to read User:Ian.thomson/ChristianityAndNPOV. We at Wikipedia are highbrow (snobby), heavily biased for the academia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018

Please do not insert fringe or undue weight content into articles, as you did to Origin of the Romanians. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Please use the article's talk page to discuss the material and its appropriate weight within the article. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Talk:Origin of the Romanians#Densusianu is fringe. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, 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 that 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. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:23, 18 April 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy. Place any further information here. Iovaniorgovan (talk) 07:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

After posting this request, the user made this edit, which means that the user is not blocked. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:12, 23 April 2018 (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.

sorry, are you talking to/about me? I do use VPN on occasion (it's for work, as I need to watch geo-blocked videos from around the world) and I forgot to sign in a couple of times (seeing as it's not required to post comments on the talk pages)-- I can tell you exactly which are my unsigned comments though (only 2-3 are unsigned but you can tell by content they're mine). is there a problem here?--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 06:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

these are my unsigned comments: "196.245.9.70 (talk) 07:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)", "23.83.37.154 (talk) 07:44, 26 April 2018" and this one on the Densusianu thread (though obviously me) "2602:301:7769:EF70:1D88:8886:4A13:2F40 (talk) 13:05, 17 April 2018 (UTC)". Forgot to sign in, so shoot me. Why don't you make it a requirement to sign in if one wants to post a comment on the talk page? Else you can forgive someone for forgetting to sign in. Any questions?--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 07:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iaaasi. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RSN notice

There is a thread concerning your edits at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:34, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of the Romanians

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 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. Borsoka (talk) 04:10, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you sent one of these "warnings" to your flunkies, too... Right?? You know, the Hungarian brigade that keeps reverting my edits? While you're at it, did you send one to yourself? I didn't violate any Wiki rules, my edit was the direct result of what was debated on the Talk pages. I got no answer to my question so I performed the edit (as advertised), and I'll continue to do so unless I get a reasonable answer. If you have a problem with it please resort to arbitration, I'm all for it.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 23:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a member of any "Hungarian brigade". I am a Romanian editor, but I think you are wrong in this particular case. If you don't improve your behaviour here, you will be blocked on Wikipedia. So my friendy advice is to stop the edit war immediately. 123Steller (talk) 13:34, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, my apologies. The edit wars sometimes lead to major improvements in the article. See my "work" on the linguistics & genetics sections as an example. More is coming. And please don't lecture me on "behavior", it's pathetic. I haven't broken any Wiki rules. In fact, the FIRST Wiki rule is to be "BOLD". Can you tell the difference? In alta ordine de idei, toate bune!Iovaniorgovan (talk) 18:16, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of the Romanians (WP:3RR)

Wikipedia have always been a community of cooperating editors. Your edit history suggests that your principal aim is to push your own rules against any editor ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]). I ask you to read basic Wikipedia policies, because editors who do not apply them always have to leave our community. I strongly suggest that you should read WP:3RR. Borsoka (talk) 13:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one pushing an ideology here, as a Hungarian trying to lord over the "Origin of the Romanians" Wiki page by, for instance, denying the inclusion of critical RELIABLE SOURCES just because you don't IDEOLOGICALLY agree with them (instead of bringing "reliable sources" to support your arguments): case in point, the THIRD-OPINION case I opened (pending). No one elected you the Pope of Wikipedia, so all editors are equal in that regard, and it will stay that way. Might I remind you, I HAVE ALWAYS RESPECTED ALL WIKI RULES! Nonetheless, YOU keep pushing your agenda and I see there could be repercussions against you. I'll look into it soon and see what can be done about your behavior here.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV dispute

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Origin of the Romanians Article. Thank you. --Cealicuca (talk) 13:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Origin of the Romanians. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:43, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Tgeorgescu. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Nicolae Densușianu seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Conclusion: your removal is not done since WP:PARITY is of application. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Alex Cohn (let's chat!) 00:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex Cohn Please refer to the edit in question. I always abide by Wiki rules and use the talk pages extensively when there's a dispute. If the edit in question is the revert on Tgeorgescu's edit, then that's pretty obvious: he uses redundant opinions of a blogger/filmmaker (NOT WP:RS) to populate an article on a historian. Nonetheless, there's a "talk" in process, so I don't see what the problem is here. Kind regards.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 01:02, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex Cohn I don't understand why you removed my last comment on the NPOV talk page. How was that "disruptive"? Please explain.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 01:12, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Iovaniorgovan, take another look at the edit I reverted - you removed a notice about your account another user had added, which seems quite disruptive to me. Alex Cohn (let's chat!) 01:28, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex Cohn Oh, that, I see. You're right, but I looked up that page and it says "These tags are not an official Wikipedia policy, and may be heeded or not...", so I decided to not heed it because I disagree that I have a single-purpose account, as I've made edits on several other pages, even quite recently. Is that wrong or just "frowned upon"? So who decides that I should (or should not) have that tag attached? Also, why was my last comment removed from the NPOV talk page? Cheers.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 01:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Nicolae Densușianu, you may be blocked from editing. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:56, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't delete any talk page comments. What're you talking about?! Please refrain from making more paranoid, unfounded and wild accusations on my talk page.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 02:00, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By any chance, are you calling me a liar? Then see [7]. I advise you to retract "paranoid" with <s> and </s>. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I don't know how exactly that happened, honestly. I think we were editing at the same time and as I published my edit I got a pop-screen to reconcile the edits either with the existing text or with my edits and I chose my edits, meaning it overwrote your recent edit... Or something like that. My apologies, it wasn't intentional. Nonetheless, generally speaking, you have gone overboard with calling my comments "disruptive". You have a long history of doing everything in your power to curtail me. But it won't work. All the best though.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 02:15, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. your name appears 17 times on my talk page. How's that not paranoid?Iovaniorgovan (talk) 02:18, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the reason why you run into problems see User:Moreschi/The Plague. Anyway, you profess to do nationalist propaganda, but in fact you make Romanians look ridiculous by pushing extreme views and pseudoscience. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:25, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I profess nothing, other than I'm here to create a better encyclopedia. You, on the other hand, have already falsely accused me (and others) of sock puppetry and other things (see above), which is the very definition of paranoia ("suspicion and mistrust of people or their actions without evidence or justification") and here you go again accusing me of other stuff, when in fact it's you who's stoking ethnic discord with false accusations, as one can see here. When I made a mistake I owned up to it and promptly apologized, yet you have refused to do so even when you were clearly in the wrong. That's the difference between you and me. Please stop abusing my talk page with your paranoid charges, I will not respond to them from here on out. Peace.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 05:26, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Nicolae Densușianu. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:17, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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) 12:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC))[reply]

ANI NOTICE EDIT WARRING

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Edit War

Your recent editing history at Origin of the Romanians 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 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. TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 08:33, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 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 ~~~~}}. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stop edit warring and seek consensus on the talk page per WP:BRD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:02, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ad Orientem I don't understand why I'm being blocked, seeing as I opened a dispute resolution some time ago. I didn't make 4 reverts, by my count. An explanation would be welcome. Cheers.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 00:14, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I already sought a dispute resolution some time ago and the last edit was meant to restore a version of the article for the moderator to see what we're talking about. Also, I didn't make 4 reverts within 24 hours. Iovaniorgovan (talk) 00:18, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Conditionally unblocked per below discussion. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:59, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will conditionally unblock you provided you agree not to make major changes to Origin of the Romanians w/o first seeking consensus on the talk page. Edit warring does not require 4 reversions, that is only a general guidepost. Slow motion edit warring and a pattern of making drastic changes to articles w/o consensus is also disruptive. This will not apply to minor changes copy-editing and so on. Let me know if you are OK with this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Fair enough. I see your point. I do have a question though. As I mentioned above, I'm currently seeking dispute resolution and if the "moderator" of that dispute suggests that we re-structure the article more in line with my previous edits, then it'd be okay to move in that direction, correct? (that may require more than just a few "minor" edits) But, obviously, I'll wait until that gets resolved to everyone's satisfaction.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 00:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will be unblocking you shortly. As for your disagreements on the article, I suggest posting a detailed WP:RfC. You can then post a neutrally worded FYI message on WP:Romania inviting interested editors to join the discussion. Be careful not to engage in WP:CANVASSING. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, much appreciated! I'll be following your advice, although it may be too late now to retract that call for dispute resolution... what do you think?Iovaniorgovan (talk) 01:30, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 recently shown interest in 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 Wikipedia's policies, or any 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.

-- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Origin_of_the_Romanians. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 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 ~~~~}}. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I re-blocked you because you made two edits at the Origin_of_the_Romanians article, contrary to the conditions set above. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm completely confused. What did I do wrong? I just made two small additions... I didn't revert or delete anything. Why is this not allowed?Iovaniorgovan (talk) 16:19, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This edit has been made, and reverted more than once in the recent past. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:24, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I get it now, but that warning message is not as clear as it could be. It's a bit confusing and I didn't do anything in bad faith so I'd appreciate it if you could remove the ban. Cheers.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 16:28, 28 November 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

The warning on the article page refers strictly to reverts and deletes, it says nothing of making small additions to the article.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 16:26, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you at this time. Our consensus seems to be that you should not make edits that have been reverted w/o obtaining consensus. Please review the unblock discussion and feedback. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:12, 28 November 2018 (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.

I am going to defer to Laser brain on your unblock request. But I will say that I am not happy with your restoring edits that have been previously challenged and removed, especially right after being released from a block for edit warring. However Laser chooses to handle your unblock request, if we have to revisit this subject again, you should be prepared for an extended and enforced wikibreak. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ack. Ping Vanjagenije to whom I meant vice Laser brain. I have been dealing with a few too many blocks today. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This block is not connected to the The warning on the article page. It is issued because of the violation of the unblock conditions set above, on this page (...provided you agree not to make major changes to Origin of the Romanians w/o first seeking consensus on the talk page...). Vanjagenije (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanjagenije Thanks for taking the time to review this, it's greatly appreciated. I did agree to not make major changes w/o first seeking consensus on the talk page but I don't see the two edits I made as being "major". Perhaps my understanding of Wiki terminology is lacking, so if someone could please explain what constitutes a "major change" (as opposed to a "minor change") then that'll clear up the confusion. I mean, are you saying that before I add even a line to the article, I'll need to bring that up on the Talk page? Also, why was my other edit reverted, seeing as it was a new WP:RS (never used before, hence never reverted)? Iovaniorgovan (talk) 22:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Help:Minor edit. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanjagenije Okay, I didn't realize the term was meant literally, rather than informally. Just the same, I haven't made any edits since and I've brought everything I had issues with onto the Talk pages for discussion as I seek consensus. However, one other editor involved in the edit war (see the latest edits to the article) has been making unilateral edits without having reached consensus, including the removal of one map which had been moved/deleted several times before (again, removal of a properly sourced WP:RS with no consensus whatsoever, as you can see here). So, the obvious question is: do these guidelines apply differently to that editor (Borsoka) or are you trying to enforce them fairly and equitably across the board? I realize this whole debate is a pain, so thanks again for your time.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 03:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlohcierekim: I think of my block not as an independent block, but as a reinstating of the original block issued by Ad Orientem because unblock conditions were violated. So, I have no objection to unblock, but only if Ad Orientem agrees too. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but all of this occurring right after being unblocked is too much for me. A short period of not being able to edit will hopefully be spent considering how to proceed here (hint: it involves WP:CONSENSUS). -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:30, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will decline the unblock. User is asked to obtain consensus before making edits that have been reverted. Even little ones. Even those of no seeming consequence.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlohcierekim In the way of achieving clarity here and avoiding any more blocks, I'll ask you the same question I asked above: am I supposed to seek consensus on the Talk page before I add even one line to the article? Even if that edit is new and is not part of any content that has been reverted before? It seems pretty extreme, but is that really the guideline here? And does that apply equally to all editors? Iovaniorgovan (talk) 22:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement

Please see this AE request relating to your participation at Origin of the Romanians. RGloucester — ☎ 20:02, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are topic-banned from everything related to Origin of the Romanians. The ban may be appealed to me after at least six months of productive editing in an unrelated topic area.

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

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/Eastern Europe#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. Sandstein 19:36, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Origin of the Romanians

Hello, Iovaniorgovan. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Origin of the Romanians".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 08:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]