EdJohnston (talk | contribs) →October 2020: new section |
LordRogalDorn (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 68: | Line 68: | ||
== October 2020 == |
== October 2020 == |
||
<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px">[[File:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|40px|left|alt=Stop icon with clock]]<div style="margin-left:45px">You have been '''[[WP:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing for a period of '''3 days''' for Personal attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to [[WP:Five pillars|make useful contributions]]. </div><div style="margin-left:45px">If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the [[WP:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]], then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''My trial was a joke. A huge discussion took place here [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EdJohnston#Hungarian_irredentism%2C_Hungary_in_World_War_II%2C_History_of_Transylvania%2C_Origin_of_the_Romanians]] between admin [[ping|EdJohnston]] and user [[ping|KIENGIR]] that I wasn't even invited to. He gave his sentence without even asking for my for my side of the story. Giving a sentence without even granting the right to defense, I don't think this is how justice works in any circumstance. Especially here where it took a long discussion even on 1 on 1. User [[ping|KIENGIR]] was simply luckly to have been the first to talk with the admin. As he has made similar personal attacks, but obviously he is not blocked, because in the 1 on 1 discussion it's unlikely [[ping|KIENGIR]] told [[ping|EdJohnston]] about his personal attacks as well. Hooray for a fair trial. Concerning only the reason I was temporarily banned (as replying to the whole discussion here would be pointless): I called user [[ping|KIENGIR]] a liar not as a personal attack or ad hominem but I was simply stating a fact, and I have the proof to undisputably back up this fact. In his request for [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hungarian_irredentism&diff=979472561&oldid=979196212]] RFC he said the following '''"Peer reviewed RS refer to the two official 1930 Romanian and 1941 Hungarian censuses and posit near equal the possible Romanian and Hungarian population in Northern Transylvania"'''. That was his original claim, please keep it in mind. In a reply [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hungarian_irredentism&diff=981137138&oldid=981066235]] I told him that '''"There is no peer reviewed RS which states their numbers was near equal, it's OR"'''. He then replied [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hungarian_irredentism&diff=981231196&oldid=981230100]] that '''"You are simply playing with words, I did not say ''states'', I wrote ''posits'', this is what they summarize, not taking sides"'''. I replied that '''"The two 1930 Romanian and 1941 Hungarian censuses don't posit near equal Romanian and Hungarian population in Northern Transylvania. That is your own faulty interpretation"'''. And he replied that '''"As well, again your lengthy speculation was useless, since I never said/suggested what you are saying "''The two 1930 Romanian and 1941 Hungarian censuses <s>don't</s> posit near equal Romanian and Hungarian population</s> in Northern Transylvania"'''. So far so good, I am saying that he is falsely interpreting the sources, not lying, adding OR, he is saying that he doesn't falsely interpret the sources, and this is genuinely what the sources posit. I replied him that: '''"Hitchins is a peer reviewed RS, and he did not posit near equal the possible Romanian and Hungarian population, far from it."'''. And this is where his lie made in full awareness begins [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hungarian_irredentism&diff=981968542&oldid=981963540]]: '''"Hitchins does not take sides (48%-50% is near equal, btw.)"'''. Let's recap, he is arguing that '''"Peer reviewed RS refer to the two official 1930 Romanian and 1941 Hungarian censuses and posit near equal the possible Romanian and Hungarian population in Northern Transylvania"''' because '''"Hitchins does not take sides (48%-50% is near equal, btw.)"'''. While in reality, Hitchins refers to the population of Romanians as being 48%-50%. And he was aware of this. Because he said in the original RFC request: '''"at the same time added the Hitchins quote copied from the earlier mentioned article, which is exactly reflecting the neutral approach based on the two censuses, not taking sides"'''. He is aware about Hitchins' text and deliberately misinterpret it. So naturally, I called out his lying [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hungarian_irredentism&diff=982104468&oldid=982000055]] with the actual quote as evidence of his lying next to it. This is Hitchins' quote: '''"Some 1,150,000 to 1,300,000 Romanians, or 48 per cent to over 50 per cent of the population of the ceded territory, depending upon whose statistics are used"'''. He replied with '''"thank you for your confirmation that 48 and 50 (and their counterparts, 52 and 50 or other little deteriorations) are very near to each other"'''. And I replied with: '''"He did not say that the other 50% and 52% were Hungarians"'''. Then the admin discussion happened and I was blocked. He then said: '''"I did not say what you insist now, what I said may be read above, regardless of other ethnics, near approximations hold"'''. What do you think after reading this about my accusation of him lying? ..... '''Paraphrasing:''' His original claim was that RS sources state a near equal number of Romanians and Hungarians. I replied that it doesn't, far from it. He replied that 48%-50% is near equal (implying that this is the number of Romanians-Hungarians), when he knew what the source is actually saying. He knew that those 48-50% are both about Romanians, so it makes 0 sense to give that as an example for your "near equal" original claim. Please, explain me how this wasn't an outright unambiguous lie? After using the actual quote to prove him wrong. He insisted that with their 50%-52% counterparts, they are very near to each other (Implying that the 50%-52% counterparts are the Hungarians, since his original claim was "near equal the possible Romanian and Hungarian population", something that the source he is aware of doesn't tell). I called him a liar pointed out the obvious: that the source does not say what he is implying. A liar because he was aware of what the source actually says, and deliberately lied about the source in both instances. '''This cannot be the case of a mistake out of ignorance since he was fully aware of what the source actaully says, yet he said the source says otherwise. I called him out for it, and got temporary banned.''' Lying is a pattern for [[ping|KIENGIR]]. If you request, I will point out other instances where user [[ping|KIENGIR]] lied in similar ways. Again, I'm not talking about making a mistake or ignorance, I'm talking about unambiguously bad faith, proveable lies. But I guess this doesn't matter as it appears the bigger problem is me calling him out for being a liar, rather than him being a proved liar. I expected a bit more from a place about knowledge. ..... In short, I believe this temporary ban is unfair for 3 reasons: (1) I wasn't even allowed to defend myself, it was an 1 on 1 conversation between [[ping|EdJohnston]] and [[ping|KIENGIR]], a sentence given in the equivalent of a kangaroo court. (2) User [[ping|KIENGIR]] being a liar is true, as proven above he really lied, an not in an "maybe he didn't know and meant well" way. So I am sentenced to a temporary block for a truthful and proven affirmation. (3) If you don't care about the truthfulness of the sentence, but merely the fact that it was a personal attack. User [[ping|KIENGIR]] made many personal attacks to me in our discussion as well, but I don't see him temporary blocked for doing the same thing that I did. ..... I don't expect a ban lift since that would discredit admin [[ping|EdJohnston]]'s decision. If anything, I expect a vague and short reply. I just wanted to point out the absurdity of this temporary ban: given while not being able to defend myself, even if guitly, it stands to common sense that in a fair trial both sides should have a chance to defend themselves, it's about fairness. And the reason I am temporary blocked, quote: "personal attacks", also being true for the other user but he doesn't get a temporary block despite doing the exact same thing I have done. Some would call this double standards, and then get an extra temporary block for pointing out the double standards. Hooray for justice. So much for "assume good faith" policies and stuff, I have seen what your "good faith" consists of. [[User:LordRogalDorn|LordRogalDorn]] ([[User talk:LordRogalDorn#top|talk]]) 21:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px">[[File:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|40px|left|alt=Stop icon with clock]]<div style="margin-left:45px">You have been '''[[WP:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing for a period of '''3 days''' for Personal attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to [[WP:Five pillars|make useful contributions]]. </div><div style="margin-left:45px">If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the [[WP:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]], then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}. </div></div><!-- Template:uw-block --> Per [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hungarian_irredentism&diff=982104468&oldid=982000055 this edit and others like it]. {{green|"Stop lying about what sources said to get things your way, your low character is subject of Greek plays"}}. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 15:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
</div></div><!-- Template:uw-block --> Per [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hungarian_irredentism&diff=982104468&oldid=982000055 this edit and others like it]. {{green|"Stop lying about what sources said to get things your way, your low character is subject of Greek plays"}}. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 15:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:50, 6 October 2020
LordRogalDorn, you are invited to the Teahouse!
Hi LordRogalDorn! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 5 September 2020 (UTC) |
Edit warring notice
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.(KIENGIR (talk) 04:12, 12 September 2020 (UTC))
- @KIENGIR The talk page was used, however, concensus is impossible to reach due to the other user's arguing in bad faith. As proof for bad faith: I made an edit, he undid my edit and asked for verification, I provided verification. His reply was that no this is not true. I asked him to check the sources I listed and asked him to list the sources for the counter-arguments he made. He insisted that he is right, I asked him again to list the sources for verification. So far so good, but now the bad faith arguments start: he replied with an ad hominem instead of discussing the the substance of the subject itself. I told him I will not play his insults game and that he didn't still didn't offer sources for verificaiton. He then started lying, saying he did provide source, despite the talk page itself being proof for anyone to see that no source was listed on his part. I tried to keep it in good faith and asked him "where", his reply was "here". Everything posted on wikipedia has to be backed up by sources. This user is attempting to undo an edit without a legitimate reason when the sources outright contradict the previous stance that he supports. On one occasion, he admitted to this, arguing that there was a mass Hungarian immigration between 1940-1941 (to which he also didn't give evidence), making the 1941 census that he insists on keeping misleading. In short: it's impossible to reach concensus when the other user is arguing in bad faith. However, according to Wikipedia, concensus is not about unanimity but about addressing legitimate concerns. A concern not backed up by evidence can hardly be called legitimate. For the sake of the guidelines, I am continuing the discussion with this user, however it's unlikely that he discussion will reach consensus soon due to his uncooperative behavior. LordRogalDorn (talk) 14:44, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- LordRogalDorn, nothing of what you say can be immediately verified because you don't have evidence in the form of diffs. But regardless, you are failing to observe WP:ONUS with respect to multiple pages. That is a problem. The status quo ante version is the version that should be displaying while a dispute remains unresolved. El_C 18:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
EL_C, our conversation and our edits can be easily found on this talk page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hungarian_irredentism The diffs can be found on the edit section of the same wikipedia page. Which part of the WP:ONUS am I failing to observe? According to the link you provided me: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". Or restores material means that the one who undoes edits also has the responsability to provide a source for his undo, which is why we are having this impass in the first place. LordRogalDorn (talk) 00:57, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- LordRogalDorn, WP:ONUS reads:
The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.
You are not living up to that maxim. As for diffs, because you are the one making the claim, you carry the burden to refine the information with due precision. El_C 16:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)- In regard to WP:ONUS what else specifically you want me to do that I haven't already done? It's impossible to reach concensus with someone who refuses on the grounds that he simply doesn't like it and that he doesn't believe your soruce despite you already provide your source. He's just making blunt statements right now "what you say is wrong", "you are destroying the page", etc. Reaching common grounds after a productive discussion would be ideal, it's impossible to reason with sone who won't listen to reason or evidence. Please, tell me what else I should do? provide a source? already done. Try to explain him? already done. Try to reach a compromise? already done. What else can I do that I haven't already tried to do? At this point, he is simply filibustering, WP:BRD.LordRogalDorn (talk) 09:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions alert
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Template:Z33 El_C 18:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- LordRogalDorn, if the disputes reported here continue it is likely there will be some admin action. I recommend that you have patience when working on these topics. This is a difficult area. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:30, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Origin of the Romanians
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Borsoka (talk) 01:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- You did not revert in order to discuss this on the talk page. First time you undoed because they are already mentioned in the article. I reasoned that they are, but their quotes are not. The second time you undoed arguing that if I want to keep that quote, we should mention other Humanist scholars who thought that the Hungarians were descended from the ancient Scythians. I replied saying that I am in favor of that, I won't undo you if you do it. Then you undoed simply saying WP:Source. I asked you to be more specific, and only then we discussed it on the talk page. We both stopped the edit-war at that point. We talked, turns out WP:Source allows you to use in certain conditions that are met here. Then you said "sorry, I stop discussing this issue with you, because we reached a stalemate" and falsely stated in the undo "OR (as per Talk page)". When we did not agree to such a thing on the talk page. It wasn't original reserach. Then you kept insisting OR. And so on. So, who's breaking the policy? I understand that you disagree, which is why I support your choice to present this to the noticeboard. But don't state your reason for undoing as "OR" when you know it was not OR.LordRogalDorn (talk) 10:11, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- Which WP policy I broke?LordRogalDorn (talk) 07:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, I do not want to play this game of yours. The relevant policies are mentioned and quoted on the relevant Talk page. Borsoka (talk) 09:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- What game? I merely asked you which WP policy I broke. The relevant policies on the talk page were already discussed. WP:Source allows you to use primary sources in certain conditions that are met here. LordRogalDorn (talk) 14:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, I do not want to play this game of yours. The relevant policies are mentioned and quoted on the relevant Talk page. Borsoka (talk) 09:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Which WP policy I broke?LordRogalDorn (talk) 07:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
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. Borsoka (talk) 01:47, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
September 2020
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Salvio 11:39, 25 September 2020 (UTC)LordRogalDorn (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The reason I am blocked is because I engaged in a slow-burning edit war. But by the time I made the edits that I got blocked for, it has already been 3 days since the other user stopped replying on the talk page - [last message on the talk page], and he didn't present me any intention to continue the discussion, such as talking to me in private or on my talk page, meaning it was no longer an edit war. :The other user simply and unambiguously lied when he said that ["three editors from three countries have been explaining a basic rule to him for days"] hoping to win the argument with a bandwagon fallacy, as you can see: [[1]] and [[2]] the other 2 users did not do such a thing that he claims they have done. As you can see from the diffs, it was far "from days", and only 1 user said in only 1 comment without further explainations or stances that we don't use older sources as far as secondary sources are concerned, primary sourced on the other hand, are by their very nature old. And the last user did not even side with him. So his claim that "three editors from three countries have been explaining a basic rule to him for days" is a blunt lie. I had no time to give this response in the report because by the time he made the false accusation and I came back the sentence was already set. :This second lie was that "we do not fill articles with lengthy quotes from arbitrarily choosen 16th-century historians' books without establishing the quotes' relevance with a reference to a peer-reviewed work" since he was aware that [[3]] the sources I added do not contradict those of modern scholars. They are relevant today as well as accepted by modern historians, it was already stated in the article that the views of modern historians are based on those humanists historians. Two of the already listed humanists historians, are those whose quotes I added. Their relevance was already established in the article. I understand that calling another user a liar is no small accusation, but I provided evidence for both of his lies, the diffs to show that what he's saying is not true. :I understand that the reason I got blocked is to protect the page. But there's no need for it, not only because as mentioned above there was no edit war anymore since the other user stopped replying for 3 days, he did not seem to present any intention to continue the discussion. But also because my edits were compliant with Wikipedia's policy. That's what this whole discussion was about, Wikipedia's policy. Wikipedia's policy states that "however primary sources may be used in accord with the WP:Primary rules." and WP:Primary states that "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge". The quotes I added pass both of these concerns: they are not personal interpretations and don't need specialized knowledge to understand them. I made no personal interpretation of those sources, I merely listed them. And I will post the 2 quotes to let you see for yourself whether they require specialized knowledge to understand them: "the Roman colonists which inhabited the region, living through various wars and tribulations and dispersed by fate, they became the Romanian people." - Szamoskozy. And "The sermons of all the Romanians are from the Romans, as they are Roman colonists: by our work, of great effort, we see their language is mutually-intellgeble with Latin… According to the tradition, Romanians are colonists of the Romans. This is proved by the fact that they have much in common with the Romans’ language, people whose coins are abundant in these places; undoubtedly, these are significant testimonies of the oldness and Roman rule here" - Nicolaus Olahus. Do you need specialized knowledge to understand the meaning of these quotes? I believe that you don't. :The sources of the quotes were properly listed: Stephanus Zamosius, Analecta lapidvm vestvstorum et nonvllarvm in Dacia antiqvitatvm, Francofurti ad Moenvm, 1598, p. 12. And N. Olahus, Hungaria sive de originibus gentis, regionis, situ, divisione, habitu atque opportunitatibus from 1536, in M. Bel, Adparatus ad Historiam Hungariae, Posonii 1735, p. 25-26. :In short, I believe the block is undeserved because the user who reported me already stopped replying on the talk page for 3 days in order to discuss the matter, therefore it was no longer an edit-war. What the user claimed during his report the are lies, as shown in the previus diffs, therefore his accusations are not true. And my edits are in accordance with Wikipedia's policy, as shown above, therefore I didn't break any Wikipedia rules with my edits. LordRogalDorn (talk) 15:31, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Procedural decline only as the block has expired.Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
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.
October 2020
Per this edit and others like it. "Stop lying about what sources said to get things your way, your low character is subject of Greek plays". EdJohnston (talk) 15:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)