User talk:Obozedalteima

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


Why have you put so many tags on articles? What's the problem? If you think there's a serious neutrality problem, it would be a good idea to discuss it on the article's talkpage. bobrayner (talk) 07:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not represent propaganda but facts.

Therefore, all propaganda from US/EU and their puppets so called "Bosniaks" and so called "Croatians" (Serbs with different religion, factual thing...) will be disputed. Nothing happened from propaganda they force into wikipedia and make fake consensus, let alone proved. I will not allow BS to spread all over something that SHOULD be public Encyclopedia. Do not bother to warn me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obozedalteima (talkcontribs) 18:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Before you throw away any opportunity you might otherwise have to promote a neutral point of view based on information found in reliable sources, I strongly caution you to read (or re-read) the policy on edit warring, the policy on Wikipedia not being a battleground, and the essay about tendentious editing. Edit warring will not be accepted here, even if you are convinced that you are right and everyone else is wrong. Any further disruptive editing in defiance of the Arbitration Committee's decision regarding "topics related to the Balkans, broadly interpreted" will result in your being blocked and/or topic-banned in accordance with the standard discretionary sanctions put in place for this topic area. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:47, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I do not believe in anything, i know. However, English version of wikipedia is mostly for native English speakers, and since from the neutral point of view no one (or very few) is interested in writing that on English, they can't get consensus, so at the end, you have fake consensus. because of that it should not be written at all. On the other hand, groups that promote propaganda are organized in most cases, and they can write whatever they want with consensus, therefore, wikipedia will always be unreliable source for information (especially) about those topics connected with politics. I may (will) write article about Wikipedia serving as politic propaganda tool, instead of source for information (in quite a bit of areas), maybe even on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

The potential for the English Wikipedia to fail to reflect a worldwide set of views on a topic is understood. Rather than just give up, we need to work to reduce this bias by bringing in more sources. Although the sources used here are, by the nature of the project and its contributors, likely to be primarily in English, using non-English sources is acceptable too — though these should, if possible, be summarized or explained in English for the benefit of readers who don't know the language of a non-English source. It is also important to keep in mind that the neutral viewpoint (NPOV) policy does not say that we (Wikipedia contributors) are supposed to identify and present a single consensus viewpoint on a subject; rather, we are supposed to present all significant views that are presented in reliable sources, making it clear where the various views come from, and giving the reader an opportunity to decide for himself which (if any) of the different views are most valid. Please carefully read (or re-read) WP:NPOV, WP:NPOVFAQ#Anglo-American_focus, WP:RS, and WP:NONENG — as well as WP:ADVOCACY and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. There are many highly controversial topic areas in the English Wikipedia, dealing with deeply entrenched disputes involving politics, nationalism, ethnicity, religion, and the like; we need to keep trying to work towards balance and neutrality in all of these, and in some cases it will probably be a never-ending endeavour. (See, to name just a few, the various articles dealing with the Sri Lanka ethnic divisions and civil war; the Northern Cyprus dispute; the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan; and the abortion debate in the USA.) I hope you'll be able and willing to contribute constructively here to a better understanding by our readers of a broader overall perspective on issues relating to the former Yugoslavia, but the only way you'll have any hope of succeeding in this is if you follow our editorial policies (even if it seems to you that others with opposing viewpoints are ignoring and fighting against those policies). — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 16:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

It's impossible, and that goes not only for English version of wikipedia, i saw, and i can confirm (because of linguistic errors), that those groups write even articles on other languages. Also, the fact that "reliable sources" are studies done in unprofessional and biased way doesn't help either. Still, wikipedia can (will) stay useful for non political, historical (involved politics) and similar topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obozedalteima (talkcontribs) 22:48, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Then you may find it best to voluntarily refrain from editing articles in subject areas where you honestly recognize that you would not be able or willing to follow Wikipedia's policies. There are lots and lots of articles on topics that have absolutely nothing to do with politics, religion, disputed history, etc. — and contributing constructively to non-contentious articles would be a much better use of your time (and everyone else's) than if you were to wage an edit war that will only get you expelled entirely from Wikipedia. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

"There are lots and lots of articles on topics that have absolutely nothing to do with politics, religion, disputed history, etc. — and contributing constructively to non-contentious articles would be a much better use of your time (and everyone else's)" I can't disagree with that one. However, i didn't started "edit war". But if there is really "NPOV", any topics considering politics, history should be at least with an warning sign "it may, or may not represent factual events, despite what sources say", or something similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obozedalteima (talkcontribs) 09:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter here whether you start an edit war, or whether you continue one that was started by someone else — you can still get blocked/banned for edit warring either way.
Also, BTW, all postings to talk pages are supposed to be "signed", so everyone can see who said what. The accepted way to do this is to type four tilde characters (~~~~), which will be replaced by your account name and the current date/time. I've been "signing" your talk page posts for you here, but you really need to be doing this yourself. Signing applies only to talk pages, of course — material added to an article should never, ever be signed. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 16:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Last warning

Stop adding "cite needed" tags when citations are already provided. If you continue to edit war and disruptively edit, you will be blocked form editing. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Примитивним шиптарима и муслиманима (такозваним "бошљацима" отпаду српском) је забрањено коментарисати овде (USE GOOGLE TRANSLATE YOU IGNORANT IDIOTS, THERE IS NOTHING RACIST HERE)

Мајмуни, немој да вам падне на памет да куцате овде, биће свашта. Трљајте вашу пропаганду у вашој штали.

"Monkeys, do not you think of that type in here will be everything. Rub your propaganda in your barn." Does not translate well to English at all. Doc talk 17:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Title is: "To ptimitive shiptars and Muslims (so called "Bosniaks" trash of Sebian people) are forbiden to edit here", furhter it says (to them obviously): "Monkeys (meaning theya re primitive specie), don't even think of typing in here, it will not end up good. Push your propaganda in your own stall/barn(?)".
Unfortunately for you there is no restriction on anyone of any particular religion posting on your page. It is not even your page to begin with. I am surprised you still have your talk page access. Doc talk 17:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Talk page access revoked. I think we've heard enough. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)