User talk:AuoueioA

1 &

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:AuoueioA reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: ). Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 21:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at List of oldest continuously inhabited cities. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:06, 15 August 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have been blocked baselesly. I provided hardcore/academic refs with carbon dating dates of Europe's oldest settlements obviously inhabitted to this day (same people, same locality, historical cultured excavated that lay on top of each others for 1000s of years, etc.). Then the opposing user held me to the highest standard on that article ever - demanding that I provide refs that actually say those places have been inhabited all this time. This is ridiculous. Who can prove that? No one - which is precisely why 99% od entries contain no such refs, simply because no one can write something like that with absoulute certainty. This is a case when the obvious should be protected from overbureaucratization: if a town exists "since the times immemorial" - that should be sufficient in and of itself, as is the case with most entried in ths article, but for some reasons the same standard is "not allowed" for the oldest settlements. You can't change the facts, people.

Decline reason:

You seem to be trying to justify your edit warring, not tell us why it was wrong. Being correct is not a defense to edit warring, as everyone in an edit war thinks that they are correct. If other editors are behaving badly, there are proper channels to address that without edit warring. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 22:37, 15 August 2023 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Not sure why it seemed that way, but that sure wasn't what I was trying to convey here. In addition to having done nothing wrong (I merely posted new scientific results of carbon dating at Europe's now oldest continuous settlements), the reporting party misused Wikipedia and outright lied about this whole case and then even deleted it: I did NOT make 4 reversals and the rule under which I was blocked (first block) says 4 are required. But the reporting party misused my original editorial contribution to pass it as my fourth reversal. Sneaky indeed. And after achieving their goal of having me blocked, they deleted the whole case from the Admin notice board.

Decline reason:

You're not blocked for violating WP:3RR; when you read that link, you'll see that it says Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times. You're blocked for edit warring. Also take a look at WP:NOTTHEM. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 23:30, 15 August 2023 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

That is circular logic. I should not have been blocked for edit warring because there was no edit war to begin with: all I did was contributing a remarkably precisely written and well sourced edit using reliable references and containing the latest carbon dating results for the Europe's existing settlements that now turn out to be obviously the oldest contiuous settlements of all Europe (unless someone really believes that people re-settled all those exact spots - by accident? LOL). In the light of cold scientific facts, the only rule you all should care about when deciding on this appeal is: Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue! AuoueioA (talk) 00:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This adds nothing to your prior, declined, unblock requests. See WP:IDHT. You were edit warring. You can say you weren't but that doesn't change the fact that you were. Yamla (talk) 10:04, 16 August 2023 (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.

You still don't seem to know what a WP:EDITWAR is. Your repeatedly restoring your preferred content at List of oldest continuously inhabited cities is a textbook example of edit warring; rather than gaining consensus for your desired content on the article talk page, you are instead re-inserting it despite it being removed by other editors. It doesn't matter if you're right; you must not edit war. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 00:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The other editor (not editors) was offered to take it to Talk - but refused/ignored it; invited to read the cold facts from the refs - but refused/ignored that too. Just how much more civil and diligent do admins expect contributing editors to be? Some have the bar set way too high here, in both new content being added and the way it's added. AuoueioA (talk) 01:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely civil and entirely diligent, that's how much. If you can't get WP:CONSENSUS on the talk page, it's not going to go in. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 01:19, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the other editor was offered Talk but ignored. Besides, Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. AuoueioA (talk) 01:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, being correct with your edits is not a defense to edit warring. You can't edit war with someone demanding a citation for the sky being blue- even if that is demonstratably incorrect to do. There are proper channels to stop such behavior. 331dot (talk) 09:09, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Government[edit]

Hey,

- Efendić, actively calling upon the current Federal government to fix the "Zrak" issue - not refuting the government;

- Ogrešević, criticizing the Government and speaking about Nikšić how his term as Prime Minister will be possibly be tough; both within the last two months. Neither of them clearly opposing the Government and its formation.

Also, Schmidt does have the majority of support in the PIC, apart from Russia and China for obvious reasons. The PIC works on a majority based consensus, not a unanimous one. (London Conference conclusions - PIC link) In addition, in both refs you've used regarding Ogrešević and Efendić, neither of them don't say they don't recognize the government and both refer to Nikšić as the incumbent Prime Minister.

Stop editing the article based on what you like it to be. I'm going to restore the last version of it for the last time I hope. Bakir123 (talk) 16:08, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry[edit]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AuoueioA. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Mz7 (talk) 08:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]