User talk:Wiksources

Welcome!

Hi Wiksources! 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! AntiDionysius (talk) 17:41, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

--AntiDionysius (talk) 17:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

Hello, I'm AntiDionysius. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Yugoslav Braille have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. AntiDionysius (talk) 17:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Yugoslav Braille, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. AntiDionysius (talk) 17:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Yugoslav Braille, you may be blocked from editing. AntiDionysius (talk) 17:47, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Yugoslav Braille. AntiDionysius (talk) 17:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please inform yourself and correct this page, there is no Serbo-Croatian language in Yugoslavia. This name was made in Yugoslavia time only in Republic of Serbia of Yugoslavia. In Croatia name Croatian-Serbian was made and 'used' in Republic of Croatia of Yugoslavia, for brotherhood reasons. Wiksources (talk) 17:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out in response to your edit request at Talk:Croatian language, the existence of the Serbo-Croatian Language is supported by numerous sources. If you're going to assert that it does in fact not exist, you will need to provide reason to believe all those sources are incorrect, better sources of your own, and to establish consensus before making the changes. Please stop reverting the page Yugoslav Braille. Thanks. AntiDionysius (talk) 17:57, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I was learning in school Croatian-Serbian language not Serbian-Croatian! Hello, please inform yourself and correct this page, there is no Serbo-Croatian language, it existed only in Yugoslavia. This name was made in Yugoslavia time only in Republic of Serbia of Yugoslavia. In Croatia name Croatian-Serbian was made and 'used' in Republic of Croatia of Yugoslavia, for brotherhood reasons. Therefore this is wrong and misleading and should be corrected. Wiksources (talk) 17:59, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't based on your personal experience, it's based on reliable sources. AntiDionysius (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do not bend truth and history. This was school program therefore agreed learnings and language name. You have access to your "paper" references so you can check, in the meantime correct wrong and missleading reference. Wiksources (talk) 18:08, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained, if you want to get this changed you need to start a discussion at Talk:Serbo-Croatian language, and provide reliable sources, and good arguments for why the mountain of existing sources are wrong. Until then, please do not change pages to your preferred version. Wikipedia works on consensus. AntiDionysius (talk) 18:11, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this mountain you refer too? Correct the wrong and misleading statements. Wiksources (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The more than 200 sources on the page Serbo-Croatian language, or for example the six different sources that follow the sentence Croatian (/kroʊˈeɪʃən/ ⓘ; hrvatski [xř̩ʋaːtskiː]) is the standardised variety of the Serbo-Croatian pluricentric language on the page Croatian language. AntiDionysius (talk) 18:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked you for being disruptive. You cannot just assert you are right and edit without sources. PhilKnight (talk) 18:16, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, why I have been blocked? Is wikipedia based only on digital resources (which can be staturated and bend as pleased to admins) or paper ones are also references and how to cite paper references? Also, do you know anything about Yugoslavia? You should block the admin! Wiksources (talk) 18:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is based on a mixture of digital and print sources. However, you provided no sources and repeatedly re-inserted your preferred text. That's why you were blocked. AntiDionysius (talk) 18:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So I can open wikipages and reference selectively references (btw. this would be very scientific!) And state whatever I want? Wiksources (talk) 18:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a language can apear in 50 years or so, since Croatian language existed for centuries before. For brotherhood reasons it accepted to be called Croatian-Serbian during Yugoslavia. Unlock my account PhilKnight Wiksources (talk) 18:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And you AntiDionysius you know very well that I am right and are doing this on purpose! Wiksources (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one reference, don't bend the truth and history! And unlock my account! https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/slavic-review/article/abs/language-politics-in-the-federal-republic-of-yugoslavia-the-crisis-over-the-future-of-serbian/08CF29D2199FAA0743DE3DC70801FBB5# Wiksources (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a process for getting unblocked. However, if you wish to avail of it, you're almost certainly going to need to make a case that you will engage in discussion and reach consensus with other editors rather than unilaterally changing things as you did before. AntiDionysius (talk) 18:33, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? This Yugoslav braille was public page open for editing. PhilKnight - unlock me you are not right! How quick you were to react to Serbian language, but to protect Croatian no, just block with one click!! Wiksources (talk) 18:37, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Am still waiting to be unlocked by 2 partial admins! Another reference of Croatian-Serbian language, many more exist published during Yugoslavian time, in paper! Of note, the only thing I mind here is obvious unjustice! https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/2292/24115/ipfinalwithcoversheet.pdf%3Fsequence%3D6&ved=2ahUKEwjIqs7D0e2HAxWFzwIHHRJuInE4HhAWegQIChAB&usg=AOvVaw2JGdTJ56wZylmjaFnnl_Bd Wiksources (talk) 19:13, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge that you have now provided sources that at least help your position. You should use the {{unblock}} template as described at WP:UNBLOCK, because I am not going to unblock you. PhilKnight (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course that you will not unblock, only block as you as partial or uninformed. What is helping your partial position defending spreading incorrect information? Wiksources (talk) 19:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And AntiDionysius is quiet, perhaps happy. Not sure what to think of wikipeadia anymore, quite biased... Wiksources (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to stop replying to you. As I have already said use the {{unblock}} template to request an unblock. PhilKnight (talk) 20:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Me as well to you, I am and was talking to AntiDionysius not you on this matter, only you know why you think you know everything about this topic (probably the reason for bias and unfair treatment) and why you wanted to block me. Wiksources (talk) 20:26, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AntiDionysius, what exactly are you waiting to update the pages after the new references? Wiksources (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are still keeping me unrightfully blocked (for in definite?!) and this has to change! You cannot deny someone the right to speak and especially to speak the truth with evidences! Also, you have not updated the pages although references have been provided (and many more exist). No one denies that, for few decades language called "Serbo-Croatian" has existed. However, you are deliberately denying that at that same time also language called "Croatian-Serbian" existed! Go try on Wikipages of Slovakian or Czech language (very comparable to this example) to say that this is all one Czech-Slovakian language and that separately they do not exist! Or better yet, go try to say on the Ukraine language page say that this is Russian language! Unblock me! Is this what the donations are paying for on Wikipedia to spread misleading and incorrect information? Wiksources (talk) 15:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be unblocked, please place the following at the bottom of your talk page, filling in "Your reason here "

{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Best, -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I have filled it yesterday and I am still waiting and don't know status nor why does it takes so long. Best Wiksources (talk) 21:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you advise where to check status of my complaint from yesterday? Wiksources (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As perhaps it may be deleted by someone above because I cannot see it. Wiksources (talk) 22:00, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't make an unblock request on this page. The edit history doesn't show it, which it would even if someone had deleted it. AntiDionysius (talk) 22:03, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, to clarify I have submitted on first day 2 requests, one was bug as the link keep opening unrelated page and the other one (for which I got message to keep the code) has dissappeared as mentioned. It seems I have been further blocked and cannot comment anything. Considering I pointed to multiple errors this is very odd. Please is anyone working on to unblock me? Wiksources (talk) 17:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have submitted it yesterday and a code was shown with message to keep it, now there is nothing anywhere to found. This is the only correct page for Croatian language: https://hr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hrvatski_jezik. The English version should be corrected as it deliberately states that it is in Serbo-Croatian (non-existing!) Language group (distorting facts). This should be commented on this English page or page reported as it is wrong. Wiksources (talk) 22:10, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday it was also stated that my complaint will be read by the administrator, thus PhilKnight, on which I also complained. Therefore I think it is deleted... So I need to file another one. Wiksources (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be unblocked please follow above instructions. The only reason I saw this is the edit filter detected a malformed unblock request. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, to clarify I have submitted on first day 2 requests, one was bug as the link keep opening unrelated page and the other one (for which I got message to keep the code) has dissappeared as mentioned. It seems I have been further blocked and cannot comment anything. Considering I pointed to multiple errors this is very odd. Please is anyone working on to unblock me? Wiksources (talk) 17:50, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was editing public pages which are (still!) stating wrong information. The creator(s) of the pages has performed subjective selection and listing of references and is ignoring (he 'cannot find them' - thus a clear bias!) oposite references accros these pages. Additionally, the creator(s) is either not knowledgeable in the topics he created or has deliberately published wrong information (both is quite worrisome!). This saturates worldwide public space with the misleading information for the audience who then further cite these wrong pages as the 'truth' (very quickly via Google search this becomes the new truth), distorting facts and making even harder to correct this fake facts to true information (without being blocked indefinitely from the first day)! Therefore, especial attention is needed to protect the truth and a person willing to provide own time to correct something utterly wrong. Even now pages with the same titles on different languages (e.g. correct information on native language page vs incorrect on English page) are published with the oposite information and nobody is checking this. This needs to be corrected as English page(s) is not correct (biased referencing), especially since this seems has been done deliberately (with very superficial argumentation for discarting any comment stating that correction is needed). While the references are being asked from me, nobody is asking the objective referencing from the creator(s), and it seems that who is longer on Wikipedia is the principle of making someone 'trusthworthy' when publishing misleading information (this can be misused). Principle instead and only should be - expertise and objectivity (but only knowledgeable person can 'peer review' what was published)!

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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here Wiksources (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. Yamla (talk) 20:19, 13 August 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.

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

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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here Wiksources (talk) 18:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

"Your reason here" is not a reason to unblock you. Please make a new request where you replace those words with your initial statement. You should not just repeat talking points back to us(as you did above), you must be specific and demonstrate that you understand why you were blocked and will not repeat it. 331dot (talk) 12:14, 17 August 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.

I don't understand what is expected of me but I'll try - the block is not necessary to prevent disruption to Wikipedia, also the block is not necessary because: I understand why have been blocked, will not cause disruption, and will make useful contribution. Wiksources (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what is expected of me but I'll try - the block is not necessary to prevent disruption to Wikipedia, also the block is not necessary because: I understand why have been blocked, will not cause disruption, and will make useful contribution.

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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here Wiksources (talk) 14:07, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This shows serious battleground tendancies and I do not feel comfortable unblocking you. Declined. Daniel (talk) 10:45, 16 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.

Thank you for re-enabling commenting on this page, but please could you accelerate the unblocking request. Kind regards Wiksources (talk) 08:21, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have done everything what was asked of me and am still blocked. Please unblock me! Thank you Wiksources (talk) 19:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, why does it take so long to unlock me? Wiksources (talk) 18:26, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have done everything what was asked of me and am still blocked. Please unblock me! Thank you Wiksources (talk) 22:16, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am blocked for 25 days now and no one is even replying to me. I have done everything what was asked from me. This is not correct. Please unblock me! Wiksources (talk) 09:10, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I still being held blocked? What else am I asked to do? Wiksources (talk) 22:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your unblock request is not very persuasive - you should say more about why you were blocked and what you will do differently if unblocked. PhilKnight (talk) 08:45, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was editing public pages which are (still!) stating wrong information. The creator(s) of the pages has performed subjective selection and listing of references and is ignoring (he 'cannot find them' - thus a clear bias!) oposite references accros these pages. Additionally, the creator(s) is either not knowledgeable in the topics he created or has deliberately published wrong information (both is quite worrisome!). This saturates worldwide public space with the misleading information for the audience who then further cite these wrong pages as the 'truth' (very quickly via Google search this becomes the new truth), distorting facts and making even harder to correct this fake facts to true information (without being blocked indefinitely from the first day)! Therefore, especial attention is needed to protect the truth and a person willing to provide own time to correct something utterly wrong. Even now pages with the same titles on different languages (e.g. correct information on native language page vs incorrect on English page) are published with the oposite information and nobody is checking this. This needs to be corrected as English page(s) is not correct (biased referencing), especially since this seems has been done deliberately (with very superficial argumentation for discarting any comment stating that correction is needed). While the references are being asked from me, nobody is asking the objective referencing from the creator(s), and it seems that who is longer on Wikipedia is the principle of making someone 'trusthworthy' when publishing misleading information (this can be misused). Principle instead and only should be - expertise and objectivity (but only knowledgeable person can 'peer review' what was published)! The block is not necessary to prevent disruption to Wikipedia, also the block is not necessary because: I understand why have been blocked, will not cause disruption, and will make useful contribution. Wiksources (talk) 17:06, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to argument my unblocking and I have done that, pointing on inconsistent and incorrect information published throughout the Wikipedia. I was asked to confirm I will provide useful contribution and will not change pages without agreement; I have done that as well. Still I was unrightfully denied right be unblocked. What does this show in your opinion regarding your view? Please unblock me! Wiksources (talk) 08:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have been blocked for 2 and a half months now, from my first day on Wikipedia, because I pointed to incorrect information which is still being kept as such published! Unblock me! Wiksources (talk) 20:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am blocked for 3 months now (forever - from the first day!?) and the "arguments" given by the "senior" administrator (with no knowledge of the topic) is that the wrong Wikipedia pages should stay wrong and discrepant to each other, in order not to disturb the creators of the wrong pages for political reasons to protect this "first come creates the truth" approach. I have done everything what was asked from me. This is not correct and does not help trustworthiness of the Wikipedia. The block is not necessary to prevent disruption to Wikipedia, also the block is not necessary because: I understand why have been blocked, will not cause disruption, and will make useful contribution. Wiksources (talk) 09:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The block is not necessary to prevent disruption to Wikipedia, also the block is not necessary because: I understand why have been blocked, will not cause disruption, and will make useful contribution. Wiksources (talk) 12:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to format it as an actual unblock request. You don't have an open one right now AntiDionysius (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]