User talk:Sillsdorust

November 2013

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Holy Roman Empire. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. - Aoidh (talk) 05:20, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please check Laszlo Panaflex talk sock of IIIraute!!!--Sillsdorust (talk) 05:31, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have been editing for over eight years and am no sock. Please provide sources for your additions of Turkish as a language and Islam as a religion for the HRE, and discuss the issue on the HRE talk page. Also, please also stop throwing around accusations while ignoring proper protocol for addressing content disputes. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 05:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Ottoman_Empire --Sillsdorust (talk) 05:39, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article you cite is on the Ottoman Empire, not the HRE. Please discuss this issue at the HRE talk page if you wish to continue. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 05:44, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources, and that article doesn't even come close to verifying anything added. Please stop edit-warring and use the talk page, because if the content truly belongs there, the way to go about doing that is by discussing and resolving the issue before trying to add the content back; edit-warring will only result in being blocked from editing to prevent disruption to the article. - Aoidh (talk) 05:49, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. - Aoidh (talk) 05:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kaser, Karl (2010), The Balkans and the Near East: Introduction to a Shared History, LIT Verlag Münster, ISBN 3-643-50190-0. Kaya, Ayhan; Kentel, Ferhat (2004), Euro-Turks: A Bridge, or a Breach, between Turkey and the European Union?, Istanbul Bilgi University

Did you actually read these books and verify that they support the information you added? Do you have a page number for the information that verifies this edit? - Aoidh (talk) 05:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

y

Apart from the effect of a lengthy period under Ottoman domination, many of the subject population were converted to Islam as a result of a deliberate move by the Ottomans as part of a policy of ensuring the loyalty of the population against a potential Venetian invasion. However, Islam was not spread by force in the areas under the control of the Ottoman Sultan according to Thomas Walker Arnold. Rather Arnold explains Islam's spread by quoting a 17th-century author who stated:

Meanwhile he (the Turk) wins (converts) by craft more than by force, and snatches away Christ by fraud out of the hearts of men. For the Turk, it is true, at the present time compels no country by violence to apostatise; but he uses other means whereby imperceptibly he roots out Christianity...

What does that have to do with the Holy Roman Empire? That doesn't verify what you added to the article. Please use the article's talk page to discuss this further, especially before attempting to reinsert the material, since it appears to have no relation to the article's subject. - Aoidh (talk) 06:04, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Muslim population in Europe is extremely diverse with varied histories and origins. The Empire laid siege to Vienna in 1683. The intervention of the Polish King broke the siege, and from then afterwards the Ottomans battled the Habsburg Emperors (Holy Roman Empire) until 1699, when the Treaty of Karlowitz forced them to surrender Hungary, Croatia, and portions of present day Slovenia and Serbia. From 1699 to 1913, wars and insurrections pushed the Ottoman Empire further back until it reached the current European border of present-day Turkey.

Ottoman expansion in Europe ended with their defeat in the Great Turkish War. In the Treaty of Karlowitz (1699), the Ottoman Empire lost most of its conquests in Central Europe.

Please stop copying and pasting content from Islam in Europe. Nothing you've copied comes close to verifying the information you inserted into the article. If you believe the information belongs on the article, please discuss it here, explaining how reliable sources verify the information, but simply copying irrelevant material from other Wikipedia articles does not help what you're trying to get across. - Aoidh (talk) 06:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The HRE fighting wars against the Ottomans does not make Turkish a common language or Islam a religion of the HRE. Are you confused about which article you are editing? Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 06:17, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ottomans Muslim largest immigrant community in Europe. immigrant in HRE of Ottoman expansion in Europe. its conquests in Central Europe

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 07:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have blocked you for edit warring. You have been warned about this before (see sections above), and while there were two sections involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, you started edit warring on User talk:Rschen7754 against the wishes of the user on whose talk page you were (this makes it clear that Rschen7754 wants it to remain on his user talk page). You then reverted the same three more times. Edit warring on multiple pages, while you are clearly aware that it is not allowed, and with previous warnings, has now gotten you blocked for 24 hours. Please don't restart these or other edit wars after your block expires. Fram (talk) 09:50, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that your edits at e.g. User talk:IIIraute are also blockworthy. When a user removes your post from his talk page, you are not supposed to add it again. Users basically get to decide what they keep on their talk page, and what they remove (within certain limits), and it is not for you to decide that someone else's user talk page should have or not have some information on it. You have reverted Illraute on his own talk page at least five times today, violating WP:3RR as well.

If, after your block expires, you again get into a content dispute, don't start edit warring (nowhere, but certainly not on others user talk page), don't try to win by posting all kinds of warnings to their pages (I see that you posted "unconstructive editing", "sockpuppet", "npa", "vandalism", "agf", and "blanking" warnings in the short span you have been here), but follow the rules of our Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Get to know our policies and guidelines, and try to resolve conflicts peacefully at article talk pages. Fram (talk) 09:58, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have also blocked User:Ditwaverspun and User:Malylethrow as sockpuppets of this account. You are on very thin ice at the moment: while I'll not change the block for now, any further problems will lead to a much longer block. Fram (talk) 10:07, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

trivial accusation

frivolous claimed!!!

I have no account User:Ditwaverspun and User:Malylethrow!!!!!!

Please stop your fabrications or you will be going to be report as a SPAM!!!!!!--Sillsdorust (talk) 06:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aoidh sockpuppets

Should blocke User talk:IIIraute suspect sock puppet of Aoidh (talk ) and Laszlo Panaflex (talk)!!!!!!

accusing

again per WP:NPA

accusing others of edit-warring is a personal attack

again again

Please stop your fabrications or you will be going to be report as a SPAM!!!!!!--Sillsdorust (talk) 07:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Roman Empire

I don't know and fail to understand what you're on about. The medieval Kingdom of Italy was clearly a part of the HRE until 1648. Also there was no area within that Empire where a substantial Turkish speaking minority was heard of. I am also definitely no sockpuppet of anyone! Please be carefull! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:53, 30 November 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

trivial accusation!!!!!!!!!!!!!! definitely no sockpuppet of anyone!!!!!!!!!!!! how could you possibly know sockpuppet of xdfhfcqsdfvgscghreghtrhtrhrehgfjhfghgfhjtrdgdsfshyuj!!!!!!!Sillsdorust (talk) 15:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is a checkuser confirmed block. You will need to provide a coherent unblock request, preferably using your primary account. Kuru (talk) 15:48, 30 November 2013 (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.

primary account!!!!!!!!!!!!!! where a primary account!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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).

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

Request reason:

trivial accusation!!!!!!!!!!!!!! definitely no sockpuppet of anyone!!!!!!!!!!!! how could you possibly know sockpuppet of xdfhfcqsdfvgscghreghtrhtrhrehgfjhfghgfhjtrdgdsfshyuj!!!!!!!

Decline reason:

You might be surprised to know how much the Checkusers can tell about accounts and their edits. Apart from which, there are other signs that admins go on. Peridon (talk) 16:19, 30 November 2013 (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.

very funny jokes surprised surprised surprised surprised OOoOOoOOo surprised OOoOOoOOoOOoOOoOOo

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).

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

Request reason:

I don't know a primary account!!!!!!! a very funny jokes trivial accusation!!!!!!!!!!!!!! frivolous Checkusers accusation there was no Checkusers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Decline reason:

There were several. Talk page access revoked. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:44, 30 November 2013 (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.