User talk:RevivedCicero

RevivedCicero, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi RevivedCicero! 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 experienced editors like GreenMeansGo (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

May 2021

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Democratic Party of Albania has been reverted.
Your edit here to Democratic Party of Albania was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links in references which are discouraged per our reliable sources guideline. The reference(s) you added or changed (https://www.arjonline.org, https://www.arjonline.org, https://www.arjonline.org) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 20:13, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Eastern Orthodoxy in Albania, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Illyricum. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Eastern Orthodoxy in Albania, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages National, Identity and Ottoman.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:24, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 21

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Shkreli (tribe)

added links pointing to Slavic, Albanian, Church, Rugova and Zagor

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing wrong in my editing. Just stating the facts. It is Wikipedia no reliable sources. RevivedCicero (talk) 11:07, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, 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 noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:41, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX for you to spew your personal opinions about Albania. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No I will not be blocked. RevivedCicero (talk) 09:59, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you won't stop, chances are rather high you will. You are spreading your own personal opinions. Feel free to do that elsewhere. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:01, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Albania. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:57, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not vandalizing. RevivedCicero (talk) 10:01, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am speaking truth. RevivedCicero (talk) 10:01, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are voicing your own opinion. And Wikipedia is not about WP:TRUTH either. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:03, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No it has not to do with my opinions. It is just the facts. Please let the facts be heard. RevivedCicero (talk) 10:06, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, as if yours is not opinion. You are completely delusional. Cite some more reliable sources. Most of your editing is rating as C because the sources that you use are unreliable. Schools would never use your sources as reliable.

You are blocking because you do not accept to hear the other side of fact and sources. RevivedCicero (talk) 05:17, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:02, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have not been blocked. If I were blocked, I was blocked because I shared the facts. This is Wikipedia. No one takes Wikipedia for facts anyway. RevivedCicero (talk) 11:05, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They actually shouldn't, although many do. It's an ever-lasting effort by a volunteer community to provide something useful to the world ... as reliable as possible but necessarily imperfect. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:49, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I now realize that I should have not edited without the permission of other editors, and I will not do that regarding future edits, but regarding talking points I should be able to bring the facts. For example, one of the editors in the "Albanian Language" page asked me to translate rrotkari in Slavic and I would like to respond to that editor. Woodrow Wilson heavily advocated for ""Albania"" to be recognized as an independent state and the population of the newly recognized "Albanian country has adapted many English words as well and I would like to explain to that editor that rrot means ""route"" or sending you somewhere and ""kari"" means ""carry"" or hold something, but because you have blocked me for no good reasons I am not able to explain that to the editor who asked me to translate "rrotkari. You can keep me blocked but it does not serve the truth. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and it has scientifically been proven not to be a reliable source. Schools in the US and the western world do not permit using Wikipedia as a source precisely of the fact that it is not reliable.

I am a scholar, highly educated and I study both the Albanian and the Slavic languages and my editing is solely based on research, and I cannot believe that you and these supposedly "scholars editors have decided to block me. RevivedCicero (talk) 05:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please Mr. Göden unblock me? RevivedCicero (talk) 05:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ToBeFree, I believe this IP address to be a block evasion by RevivedCicero. Their suggestion is the same by RevivedCicero when they removed all the references and likewise considers it to be "Reverted to impartial and neutral". soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 06:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not an evasion. All editors regardless of their sources should be able to contribute. Editors should not be blocked just because another editor does not agree with the other editor.

Thank you for giving me back the right to edit ""ToBeFree"". RevivedCicero (talk) 04:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ToBeFree RevivedCicero (talk) 04:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not vandalizing. By the way Lezha (лежа) is a Slavic word as well. Come on I cannot believe these partisans continue to block me. Stop the partisanship and accept to hear the other side of the facts. The only reason why I am being blocked is because I brought the other facts that some editors would not accept. RevivedCicero (talk) 05:09, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. Who do you think are you? The God of truth? RevivedCicero (talk) 05:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why in good mind do you call my editing disrupting? There is nothing disrupting about my editing. Can you answer? RevivedCicero (talk) 05:33, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you answer back ToBeFree. Why do you continue to block me? I would like to hear the reason why are blocking me? Just because an editor brings facts that are opposite to your facts is is not a reason for blocking. RevivedCicero (talk) 05:32, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After leaving seven comments in one hour you cannot expect a quick response. ToBeFree, they're trying to get your attention. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 07:18, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the ping. RevivedCicero, you have been edit warring in the article about the Shkreli tribe. Your general behavior seemed disruptive to me and is perhaps best described at WP:IDHT, so I didn't explicitly make the block about the edit war only. Your general approach to editing and Wikipedia seems community-incompatible enough to justify a block. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read carefully, it might be interpreted as war by editors who do not agree with facts presented by other editors who have facts that are contrary to their established believes, but it simply is not war editing. My editing is based on facts that the other editors do no consider facts. Especially when it comes to the fact of the language which were carefully explained in the talk section of the page and have already been removed. Now if my statement where not facts those editors would have not removed them, because everyone would have laughed at them. For example, if an editor would say the Germans are actually Chinese the first thing that serious editors would do is leave that talking point there and argue based on facts that actually Germans are not Chinese. Another example, lets say someone says that the Germans are Nazis. The instant reaction would be to remove that talking point because Germans know that the Nazis have denigrated and harmed the perception of the Germans in manners that probably will never be cured. Exactly the same is regarding my talking points. If my talking points were not true they would have left them in there an argue that are not true, but instead these editors not only removed and edited my talking points but also tried to block me. Now think through this because you seem to be a highly educated individual and intellectual. RevivedCicero (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

Read carefully, it might be interpreted as war by editors who do not agree with facts presented by other editors who have facts that are contrary to their established believes, but it simply is not war editing. My editing is based on facts that the other editors do no consider facts. Especially when it comes to the fact of the language which were carefully explained in the talk section of the page and have already been removed. Now if my statement where not facts those editors would have not removed them, because everyone would have laughed at them. For example, if an editor would say the Germans are actually Chinese the first thing that serious editors would do is leave that talking point there and argue based on facts that actually Germans are not Chinese. Another example, lets say someone says that the Germans are Nazis. The instant reaction would be to remove that talking point because Germans know that the Nazis have denigrated and harmed the perception of the Germans in manners that probably will never be cured. Exactly the same is regarding my talking points. If my talking points were not true they would have left them in there an argue that are not true, but instead these editors not only removed and edited my talking points but also tried to block me. Now think through this because you seem to be a highly educated individual and intellectual. RevivedCicero (talk) 23:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You seem to think that you were blocked for the content of your edits, or that people disagree with them; that is not why you were blocked. You were blocked because you are acting as a truth warrior; what we are concerned with more is what is verifiable- see WP:TRUTH. You have also edited disruptivtely. This block was correctly placed, and I see no grounds here to remove it. 331dot (talk) 07:18, 1 September 2024 (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.

A word about your explanation that you were not edit-warring. You evidently think that edit-warring doesn't count as edit-warring as long as you are certain that your edits are right. Wikipedia's policy on edit warring is, basically, "don't edit war", not "don't edit war unless you are convinced that you are right". Indeed, it would be completely meaningless to have an edit warring policy which exempted any editor who was convinced that they were right, as in most edit wars everybody involved thinks they are right. JBW (talk) 08:28, 1 September 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

Unfortunately some of the editors who have requested to block my account based on their edits seem not to be fully proficient in the English language. Editors who are not fully proficient in the English language should not dictate who edits in the English version of the Wikipedia. This war-editing accusation might stem from that fact as well. Would you please do me a favor and unblock me?RevivedCicero (talk) 22:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

See the decline of your unblock request below. JBW (talk) 00:18, 4 September 2024 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Would you be able to show war-editing? The reason why the account is blocked is not because of edit-warring but because the facts presented were contrary to their established believes. At the end of the day it does not really matter how protective and defensive those editors get by the facts. My statements are based on general historical knowledge that are widely used in history books throughout the western world. It is widely recognized that the term "Albania" or country was never used before the 19th century, and Albania was recognized as a country as a result of the vacuum left from the Ottomans and the fights between the Austro-Hungarian and Serb empires. That is widely considered to be a fact if history is studied. Why is that considered edit-warring when it is widely accepted as a historical fact? Those editors are the one who engage in edit-warring not me because they do not want to accept widely accepted historical facts. In addition, it is widely accepted that these editors lay claims in halve of Montenegro, halve of Serbia, halve of Macedonia and halve of Greece based on imaginary theories that are taught in their educational system as historical facts. Why is stating facts that are widely recognized in the western world as facts is edit-warring? RevivedCicero (talk) 21:47, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Making absurd accusations against the blocking administrator, instead of addressing the reason for the block, is not going to get you unblocked. As for your remark about editors' proficiency in English, it really doesn't deserve an answer. You ask to be shown your edit-warring. I can't see why, as you know what you did, but since you ask, here you are: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. JBW (talk) 00:18, 4 September 2024 (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.

Would you be able to show war-editing? The reason why the account is blocked is not because of edit-warring but because the facts presented were contrary to their established believes. At the end of the day it does not really matter how protective and defensive those editors get by the facts. My statements are based on general historical knowledge that are widely used in history books throughout the western world. It is widely recognized that the term "Albania" or country was never used before the 19th century, and Albania was recognized as a country as a result of the vacuum left from the Ottomans and the fights between the Austro-Hungarian and Serb empires. That is widely considered to be a fact if history is studied. Why is that considered edit-warring when it is widely accepted as a historical fact? Those editors are the one who engage in edit-warring not me because they do not want to accept widely accepted historical facts. In addition, it is widely accepted that these editors lay claims in halve of Montenegro, halve of Serbia, halve of Macedonia and halve of Greece based on imaginary theories that are taught in their educational system as historical facts. Why is stating facts that are widely recognized in the western world as facts is edit-warring?

September 2024

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the posting of this notice.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:24, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was exactly one user who has requested a block of your account, so "some of" them is Soetermans. After receiving explanations from three administrators about the issues and why your content-based explanations have no effect on an edit-warring-related/conduct block, you personalized the issue, implying their language knowledge is so bad that an incorrect edit warring accusation might be caused by it, and continued arguing about the content, so a block that doesn't affect this page here became insufficient to prevent disruption. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:35, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]