User talk:The law of Knowledge

Welcome!

Hi The law of Knowledge! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Vanjagenije (talk) 23:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

Hello, I'm Vanjagenije. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Kosovo that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was civil. I presented my point of view and why that person was not acting on good faith. I was respectful and I just told you why that person is Pro-Kosovo as a country (even tho is not worldwide recognized as a country) because he has pages ONLY regarding Kosovo and Albania. Also, he is against Serbian territorial integrity by claiming Kosovo as a separate country.

Also, the reply was removed, because I checked. So it's not "may have been removed".

Apparently wikipedia is restraining the rights to free speech... The law of Knowledge (talk) 13:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no freedom of speech in Wikipedia, see WP:FREESPEECH. Editing Wikipedia is a privilege. That privilege may be removed if you continue to act contrary to Wikipedia's policies. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If editing wikipedia is a privilege, why is it possible to edit almost all pages even without having an account?

Also, you're breaking one of Wikipedia's policies, more specifically Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Also, according to this article: Ideological bias on Wikipedia#Articles related to U.S. politics, it is said that "Research shows that WIKIPEDIA IS PRONE to NEUTRALITY VIOLATIONS caused by BIAS FROM ITS EDITORS". That user didn't had a neutral point of view, but he was Pro-Kosovo and Anti-Serb (indirectly Pro-USA since USA is the one who created that state, mostly from NATO bombing of Yugoslavia).

And honestly I don't understand you. You're a Serb with Anti-Serb views? The law of Knowledge (talk) 12:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please tell me, what I've done contrary to Wikipedia policies, so my priviledge on Wikipedia "may be removed", since I didn't edited any page to harm them? The law of Knowledge (talk) 13:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

The law of Knowledge (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I've been blocked with the follosing reason "</nowiki>Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia". I have the account from more than 3 years and never edited anything here. As it's stated on the guide to appealing blocks, it' said: "You, as a blocked editor, are responsible for convincing administrators: that the block was not necessary to prevent damage or disruption (i.e., that the block violates our blocking policy);". Since I have the account from more than 3 years and I have never edited a single page, it's clear that the reason is an artificial one. I have never edited pages on Wikipedia, just read the articles on it. In my opinion I've been blocked not from editing a Wikipedia page, but from personal reasons the administrator had, going against the Wikipedia policies regarding good faith on wikipedia and puting his personal reasons above the Wikipedia policies. In my opinion, his personal reason was against another Wikipedia policy, the neutral point of view<nowiki> , but this is another topic.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:59, 21 January 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.

Unblock 2

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).

The law of Knowledge (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I've been blocked for a reason I DON'T KNOW, and I made a first appeal, but was rejected (and I cannot reply to it) Response: I cannot justify why I should be unblocked since I don't know the reason for being blocked. First, the administrator that blocked me should have a reason for blocking me and to tell me the reason. I don't need to convince the administrators that the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia since I have NEVER edited a single page on this encyclopedia on 3 years. Also, I cannot convince the administrators that I understand what I have been blocked for, since I was blocked without any reason, I cannot convince the administrators that I will not continue to cause damage or disruption since I didn't caused any damage or disruption, and I cannot convince the administrators that I will make useful contributions instead since I didn't made any unuseful contribution. Personally, I doubt the correctness of the administrator that blocked me and I think that he is not having a Neutral point of view (like the Wikipedia policy states) and is a possible corrupt administrator - as the definition of corruption is DISHNOEST or fraudulent conduct by those in power, that administrator acts in a dishonest way (dishonest: behaving or prone to behave in an untrustworthy, deceitful, or insincere way). In my opinion, blocking random users permanently for no reason is a question mark regarding administrator's capability of administrate this encyclopedia and even more, keeping it as a trusty encyclopedia.

Decline reason:

You realise your edit history is public, right? We can see it at Special:Contributions/The_law_of_Knowledge. You falsely claim you've never edited a single page. However, apart from this page, we can clearly see you have edited Talk:Kosovo fifteen times. Yamla (talk) 20:20, 21 January 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.

Unblock 3

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).

The law of Knowledge (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Regarding the last message I received from the administrators regarding the unblock request: I have never edited a page. I don't see why replying to some messages on a talk section (which is like a forum or a chat room) is seen as an edit to a page. I didn't edited the page, I replied to messages (which is also the 1st time on 3 years on Wikipedia). With this in mind, I have never edited a single page in more than 3 years here on Wikipedia. If I would have edited a page's content, I would've understand. But saying that replying to messages are edits to a page is just an artificial reason. Also, according to https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocks_and_bans, I should have been warned before blocking (Users should be WARNED with the right warning templates before administrators block them). Also, I can't contact the administrator that blocked me since his e-mail is not available (All administrators who block users MUST have an email EMAIL address in their settings so they can be contacted or talked to by a blocked user if needed). Regarding the period, is the 1st block for not editing any pages (we cannot put few replies as page edit), without a warn, without a reason, being permanently, and not a temporary block. According to https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocks_and_bans, most blocks should be for 24 hours, while I got a free block permanently. In my opinion, the administrator that blocked me went AGAINST THE WIKIPEDIA POLICIES, (Wikipedia:Assume good faith). 1st, the administrator didn't assumed the good faith regarding me, and he just assumed that I was trying to hurt. 2nd, he didn't intervened in the conversation (just the 1st reply, but wasn't at the subject), just acted. 3rd, he didn't had a neutral point of view (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view), but took sides in that conversation. Also, he wrote a message on my page regarding a message on a page that didn't seem very civil, but he didn't told me what wasn't civil. According to his message, Wikipedia is built on collaboration but he's not accepting the collaboration. Also, can be possible to reply to administrators response to unblock request, so I won't create a new unblock request? The law of Knowledge (talk) 4:14 am, Today (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

It's pretty clear you came with some off-Wiki agenda. That's not getting into the WP:Incivility and and personal attacks. Hence the "NOTHERE" block. Really, saying you do not understand why you are blocked does not carry. Your part of the discussion above at #January 2024 is very convincing-- of the need to block you. Thanks. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:43, 22 January 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.

To respond, simply edit this talk page to provide your response and do not wrap the unblock request formatting around it. The blocking administrator's email is indeed available, go into the Tools menu on their user talk page and click "email this user". You cited a policy on the Simple English Wikipedia, which is a separate project with its own policies. Here, warnings are not required if the situation warrants it. Blocks can be for editing any type of page on Wikipedia, not just articles(which seems to be what you are suggesting). Blocks are for preventing disruption, and you greatly disrupted the Kosovo talk page without making contributions to this encyclopedia. What contributions do you intend to make to the encyclopedia? 331dot (talk) 09:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would also add the block is not "permanent", suggesting it will never be removed, it is "indefinite", only meaning that it has no specific end date and you must convince an administrator to remove it. 331dot (talk) 09:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for response and giving me the possibility to respond to your response. I searched in Tools menu and I didn't found any e-mail. I also searched (with CTR+F) in the Tools menu by the word "mail" and it gave me 0 results. Yes, I did, I cited a Wikipedia policy (didn't saw it was on Simple English). But those policies aren't general appliable to all Wikipedia languages? Every language has it's own policy? I used them thinking that those policies are universally available. Regarding the disruption... come on... is just a talk page. I mean, except for some users, people generally don't enter there, even more read it. People who come on Wikipedia, read just the main page where is the main content, they come for. Just having different points of view (neutral or taking sides) it cannot be said that I disrupted the talk page. Even more that Kosovo subject is still a controversial one and the situation there can change every day. Regarding permanent and indefinite, that's my bad, I didn't saw it and thank you for pointing it out. But still, indefinite without taking any action on lifting that block, can be named a permanent one, isn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The law of Knowledge (talk • contribs)

You state, "All administrators who block users MUST have an email EMAIL address in their settings so they can be contacted or talked to by a blocked user if needed". WP:ADMINACCT states, "While best practices are for administrators to have email and notifications enabled, they are not required to do so, nor are they required to read and/or respond if they are enabled." I will, however, note that your blocking admin does have the ability to receive email. --Yamla (talk) 11:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to Blocks and bans, all administrators must have an e-mail address (Block section, 1st paragraph after the dots).

Where? I looked at the Tools menu and I didn't found it. I'm really curiours why he acted this way. The law of Knowledge (talk) 11:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simple.wikipedia is a different project with different policies and guidelines. They are often similar, but not necessarily. --Yamla (talk) 12:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, @331dot explained me this. I didn't knew that every Wikipedia project has it's own policies.

But still... this doesn't solve my problem for being blocked without a reason. The law of Knowledge (talk) 12:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, policies are not universal among all Wikipedia projects. Many are similar, but not all. I can't explain why you aren't finding the "email this user" link. Here's the link to email me; you can probably replace my username with the blocking administrator's. 331dot (talk) 14:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I explained in my unblock decline that you are blocked for very good reasons. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I still don't see the problem. I just made a suggestion and a user made a non-neutral point of view (which he really did, regarding strong nationalist feelings), with an administrator defending that user.

If administrators take sides, I understand the reason. If administrators are neutrals, than no, I still don't understand The law of Knowledge (talk) 21:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, you don't need my email address. I watch this page, you can write to me here. Second, it is not true that you were blocked without a warn, I warned you here and again here. By the way, you keep saying that you haven't ever edited a page. If you do not intend to edit pages, then you shouldn't have a problem with being blocked. You can still read Wikipedia like always. Also, you say that talk page is like a forum or a chat room, but it's actually the opposite (see WP:NOTFORUM). So, it is not uncommon to block users for their behavior on talk pages. Talk pages are there to help building an encyclopedia, so if you disrupt talk pages, you disrupt building the encyclopedia (and it is especially problematic if that is all you have done in 3 years). Vanjagenije (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first one isn't a warn. Is just a message for me to assume good faith regarding his message. And I showed you 3 times (because first 2 messages we both deleted few minutes after writing them) why his message wasn't in good faith (just an opinion, people should justify why they agree to change the content of a page or not, not simply decline it).

But why should I be blocked if I didn't made anything wrong? Is forbidden to make suggestions? Even more, is forbidden to justify them?

About the forum or chatgroup... they are similar. Maybe they are named different here, on wikipedia, but the idea is the same. Most people don't know the existance of the talk section. Even more to enter there and actually write something.

Why reading the Wikipedia on this particular account for 3 years is problematic? I don't understand. Isn't this the point of Wikipedia? To read and learn things? No one is obligated to edit pages. Otherwise, on Wikipedia could've read only people who have an account and made some edits... The law of Knowledge (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are now completely in WP:IDHT, WP:CIR, and WP:BATTLEGROUND territories. Make your next unblock request count because it'll be your last one. Your current approach is not working and is demonstrating you need to remain blocked. --Yamla (talk) 23:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it has been pointed out clearly how your behavior has been disruptive. I was quite thorough about it, and so was Vanjagenije. What Yamla said. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why trying to improve the content was disruptive? The law of Knowledge (talk) 08:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How would a different approach change things? The law of Knowledge (talk) 08:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't request unblocking until you can answer those questions yourself. Blocks do not prevent reading Wikipedia, only editing. You may wish to edit a Wikipedia project where you can better understand the rules and instructions you are given, perhaps one in your primary language. 331dot (talk) 08:48, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to make the first suggestion to a topic, and I was denied. I came with arguments in my defense, to explain to others why I suggested that, and I was blocked.

That's why I'm asking, how a different approach would change the things? The law of Knowledge (talk) 10:15, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 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 post of this notice.

Vanjagenije (talk) 10:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enough of WP:trolling! Vanjagenije (talk) 10:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]