Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs) →Blocked: new section |
|||
Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
You are welcome to join the [[Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#John_Vincent_Atanasoff|discussion there]]. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 05:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC) |
You are welcome to join the [[Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#John_Vincent_Atanasoff|discussion there]]. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 05:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC) |
||
== Blocked == |
|||
Blocked for blatant revert-warring on [[Bulgarians]]. 24h for a first offense, but this will escalate quite quickly to longer blocks if you continue. |
|||
[[Image:Balkan topo en.jpg|30px]] In a 2007 [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia#Discretionary_sanctions|arbitration case]], administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user editing [[Balkans]]-related articles in a disruptive way. If you {{#if: | continue with the behaviour on [[:]]| engage in further inappropriate behaviour in this area}}, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-balkans2--> |
|||
While you are blocked, you could perhaps help further dispute resolution if you document what academic credentials and what international standing the authors have who support that "Iranian" theory. If it's a theory that is only promoted by a small circle of authors from a single country, we'd probably have to treat it as a fringe view under [[WP:UNDUE]]. Please document in what international peer-reviewed publication outlets this theory has been discussed and what echo it has found in international scholarship. I may be wrong, but I was under the impression that the Turkic linguistic background is virtually undisputed as the standard view. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 12:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:09, 5 August 2008
Edit summaries and signing comments
Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thank you. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 00:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as in England, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 00:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Working together
I have the impression that you are rather upset with me after our discussions on the talk pages of Bulgaria and Gradeshnitsa tablets. We've been discussing matters for a few days now. I am not trying to make you upset; I am just trying to help improve these articles.
I realize I have removed and changed some text in these articles and that you disagree with my editing actions. This is a normal interaction on Wikipedia. Our task is now to work out our differences to our mutual satisfaction while retaining Wikipedia's encyclopedic neutral, encyclopedic point of view.
I wish to note that I was not the only editor who has removed your edits. From your comments, I do get the impression you think I am someone actively working against you. Working against you is not my intent - I am trying to work with you. I want to find the proper place, and way, to address your concerns in Wikipedia. I do not dispute the evidence for possible ancient writing in the region of present-day Bulgaria. I dispute that we have reached the proper place, and proper tone: I think we should not discuss this so prominently in the Bulgaria article without a lot more care.
Some of the work that resulted in part from this discussion was actually productive - there is now a Gradeshnitsa tablets article, and you have found some very useful academic articles about the matter of early writing in the region. We should definitely continue with this productive exercise and expand the Gradeshnitsa tablets article.
Possible connection to User:Lantonov
I found myself in a discussion with Monshuai, and a few day later I find user User:Lantonov take text I wrote in this discussion and use it in an entirely different context in another discussion altogether (see User talk:Lantonov for more I wrote on this). Both users are interested in POVs in connection to Bulgaria. Martijn Faassen (talk) 19:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Your name has been mentioned at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard
You are welcome to join the discussion there. EdJohnston (talk) 05:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Blocked
Blocked for blatant revert-warring on Bulgarians. 24h for a first offense, but this will escalate quite quickly to longer blocks if you continue.
In a 2007 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user editing Balkans-related articles in a disruptive way. If you engage in further inappropriate behaviour in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. Thank you.
While you are blocked, you could perhaps help further dispute resolution if you document what academic credentials and what international standing the authors have who support that "Iranian" theory. If it's a theory that is only promoted by a small circle of authors from a single country, we'd probably have to treat it as a fringe view under WP:UNDUE. Please document in what international peer-reviewed publication outlets this theory has been discussed and what echo it has found in international scholarship. I may be wrong, but I was under the impression that the Turkic linguistic background is virtually undisputed as the standard view. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)