User talk:Borchica

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pyramids[edit]

If you would just post a link to the text you want editors to look at, that would be fine and would avoid issues of copyright violation that posting the entire text on a free-content website produces. Acroterion (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I've done that already. Dougweller (talk) 21:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Dougweller (talk) 21:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 2011[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not include unsupported or inaccurate statements. Whenever you add possibly controversial statements about a living person to an article or any other Wikipedia page, you must include proper sources. If you don't know how to cite a source, you may want to read Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners for guidelines. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 23:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

edit warring[edit]

Please don't WP:edit war as you are at Bosnian pyramids. If you cannot resolve your concerns on the talk page, please see WP:dispute resolution for how to handle this. If you continue to edit war, you can be WP:blocked for disruption. — kwami (talk) 09:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Bosnian pyramids. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 11:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#user_Borchica

As requiested I have now launched an ANI.Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bosnian pyramids. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

  1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Acroterion (talk) 12:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Bosnian pyramids, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not remove text & sources simply because a link may be dead. Sources do not have to be accessible on the web. And as I pointed out, there are a number of sources that have the entire text of the Harris article Dougweller (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You were warned twice, I've reported you now at WP:AN3. You really must stop reverting right now. Dougweller (talk) 17:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. T. Canens (talk) 17:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. T. Canens (talk) 17:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.


I think you would have been unblocked if you had written "I unambiguously retract my threat of legal action and will not make such threats in the future". If you'll say that, you should be ok (although you may still have to sit out your 48 hour block, I can't guarantee what another Admin will say about that). I did comment on your draft article page - it's particularly important to establish notability. And I admit I'm still frustrated that I did a copy and paste from Swelim's report and you removed it saying Swelim never said it. Dougweller (talk) 12:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dougweller I meant Swelim hasn't said what was there on Bosnian pyramids site before and that is was personal interpretation of the editor, then somebody added some text from his report later. Thx for helping. I believe together we can solve this riddle and present to Wiki readers different views until it is officially clarified what is the case with those pyramidal structures.

Borchica (talk) 13:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Dear admin! I understand I was blocked because of talking legal action and first because of edit warring, I edited one article more than three times in one day. I am sorry for doing it and I already removed the legal action talking. Now I understand it inhibits free editing, creates bad atmosphere and that Wiki had bad experience who made legal threats. Next time I will use other possibilities as consensus or dispute resolution. I wasn't familiar with Wikipedia policy on both issues. I am not doing it again and I started carefully reading all the rules and guidelines on Wiki from A to Z.

I believe I can contribute a lot to Wikipedia expansion and quality of contents the proper way. I signed into Wikipedia as I am interested in pyramids. The new discoveries on pyramids all over the world are changing the history we learned at school. When I checked the content published on Wikipedia I wanted to correct some statements but not the right way obviously. I will definitely learn how to do it properly. I would like also to publish some new interesting articles. First I want to publish the page at User:Borchica/ICBP when it is ready but at the moment I am unable to work on it directly.

I read about Assume the assumption of good faith and that getting too emotional is not 'bad faith' so I guess this also applies in my case as my legal threat and edit warring were just the consequence of my emotional reaction. I am really sorry my emotions escalated. Now I know knowledge is the right tool. I am thoroughly studying all the rules. There is a lot of stuff to digest but I am ready and patient with it. Actually I am thankful to admins for having me blocked because I analysed myself and progressed also on a personal level.

Please reconsider blocking me as I really learned a lesson, I unambiguously retract my threat of legal action, I will not make such threats in the future and I will act responsibly and according to Wikipedia policy from now on.

Yours sincerely, Borchica (talk) 11:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Since you have retracted the threat of legal action I have lifted the indefinite block, leaving the original 24 hour block for edit warring. When the block expires please try to edit cooperatively, discussing things when you disagree with others, and not trying to impose your own view, otherwise you are likely to be indefinitely blocked again. We all have to accept that we sometimes don't get our own way in Wikipedia. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article[edit]

You added a link to the wrong page earlier, you want WP:Requests for feedback. --Dougweller (talk) 16:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Schoch[edit]

Please explain why the source is unreliable: I see no such objection. You appear to be removing sourced content that that was, so far as I can tell, published elsewhere that contradicts your agenda. While the link is to Schoch's website, the content is stated to have been published: "This article was originally published in The New Archaeology Review, volume 1, issue 8, pages 16-17, September 2006". I've reviewed the discussion at the reliable source noticeboard, and your reason for removal - that it's self-published - doesn't seem to have much to do with that discussion - the previous state seems to be in line with the opinions expressed there, and the link you removed was, in fact, suggested at RSN. Acroterion (talk) 01:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Quoting wiki on WP:SPS Questionable sources

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, “or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions”.

Schoch is saying he heard from reliable source and he is not quoting it so it is: a) his personal opinion as there is no evidence for such claim b) a rumour heard from an anonymous source (we do not know whether it is reliable or not - it is his personal opinion that it is reliable and it is not again backed up by any evidence)

Dr Schoch claims Sphynx in Egypt is 7000-9000 years old and there was an advanced civilization more then 10.000 yrs ago (www.robertschoch.com/sphinxcontent.html) which is against worldwide acknowledged history so your claim "It appears to be reliable" is very questionable, especially as many many other scientists who don't go against acknowledged science were not quoted just because they wrote positively about those pyramid structures. So beside all this the whole article also lacks WP:NPOV. And because of latter I suggest we also add in the header of the article that it has POV and external links issues.

Anyway I found in Wikipedia proof and evidence don't count much but it is knowledge and skillfulness of editors that decides what will stay on page so at the end it is all POV and outnumbering one side when it comes to controversial issues. That's just exhibit of power in my opinion and the world we live in is heavily slithering downwards also because this doctrine is present in everyday life. And some are capable of very low shots to suit their purpose and make the point. I truly believe you are not one of such persons so let's make those two sites neutral and present (of course the right way in compliance to Wiki terms and conditions) also scientists' opinion who claim there is something there. And there are many. In fact much more than those who say there is nothing there. And at the end let the people decide which story to believe after reading both opinions - mainstream/acknowledged one and alternative one.

Take care, Borchica (talk) 02:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The general impression I get is that Schoch is less than ideal, and that his opinion, while maybe worth mentioning, is not definitive. I think you're overstating the reasons to not have the material there; however, I don't see this as something that's central to the article. I warn you again: you are verging on attacking other editors. Please remember that we're all trying to improve the article, and that there is a clear diversity of opinions in the wider world, with polarization between two extremes. The article reflects that, so I don't see the non-neutral POV that you assert. Acroterion (talk) 02:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that WP:CONSENSUS is very important. This is a fringe article so WP:FRINGE also applies and our sourcing policy is affected by that. I don't know how you think this goes against WP:EL - but do discuss external links on the talk page if you think there is a problem. I also think you still misunderstand WP:NPOV and WP:IRS - your concept of reliable is not ours. Dougweller (talk) 06:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would advise against reverting the Schoch item again, as you will be edit-warring (again), and your characterization of the edits of others as "malicious" is, to say the least, unfortunate. Acroterion (talk) 11:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Well totally agree that it is WP:FRINGE theory but WP:NPOV must still be represented. Fringe doesn't mean that ALL negative publicity is published and NONE positive evidence is not. Especially when it is used in a manipulative way and it is taken out of context. Can I publish on some web page 'Dougweller is a big liar as I heard from a trusted source?' Probably it would be deleted the next minute and I would be banned from Wiki for 48 hrs. So his POV is used only for discreditation as fringe theories ALWAYS attack established scientists' view. Giordano Bruno was burned at stake for saying that Earth is circling around the Sun. Let's hope that Osmanagich and his followers won't meet with the same destiny. If you take a look at most of nowadays acknowledged theories you will notice that mostly those were the theories that were revolutionary and considered fringe at some time in the past. Finally we learned about them at school. You think that Osmanagich would be honored with membership in RANS and got a job as professor at AUBIH if Schoch's claims were considered reliable and trustworthy?

Regarding WP:EL there are some blog links which are totally unacceptable for Wiki. It maybe appears I have more time than others but I am not paid for checking every letter and link on Wiki. But it is interesting that on the other side for some it has become their life mission to defend their POV on Wiki and they do not let others to present evidence and proof going against it (it is happening on lots of pages). Sometimes I ask my self whether they are paid for doing so? But thank God Wiki has a lot of means for justice to surface. And I will use one by one all of them in order to get NPOV to be respected on those pages. I thought Wiki was a reliable source of info but now when I learned how it operates I see that some pages might be corrupted, and I will try my best Wiki gets the credibility it deserves.

It is also good that Wiki has View history section so today is 2011/04/18. I suggest we meet here on 2016/04/18 and talk about this issue again and compare the info given on this page then and now. I've put it in my calendar already. Deal?

Douweller, you said for RANS: Membership of professional bodies: this is not the respected Philadelphia organisation but a private Russian one including a number of fringe people besides SO) You meant Nobel prize winners by that? Please support your claims with evidence.

Dougweller, you said 'I'm sorry, but whatever the private university is that calls him a professor means by that, it's misleading and doesn't belong in the lead, he isn't known for being an academic so replace with amateur archaeoligist.' Amateur archeologist is the right title he deserves. I agree with that. On the other side he is leading the team of archeologists from all over the world. Probably he is giving them hallucinating drugs to make them see man-made structures there and actually they are just digging the soil in order Osmanagich can plant olive trees and corn. But: citing AUBiH page: 'During the study, AUBiH students that chose SUNY option too, have the status of full-time student enrolled at the State University of New York' Is that University really so private and not worthy mentioning? Well I think Hilary Clinton has really plenty of time then otherwise she wouldn't hail every opening of a private American Institution, don't you think so? I believe that Clinton's speech really gave it immense credibility. Regarding Maya and Olmecs - the claim used to make Osmanagich a deceiver is not only his. [copyvio linked deleted here by [[Use:Dougweller which related to a pyramid at El Mirador ] This is the place I am going to visit this summer. I will prepare hundreds of sources that speak about miraculous pyramid discoveries popping out throughout the world and if Wiki won't follow the pace by publishing them it will soon become the place where a bunch of embittered nerds try to solve their frustrations. Let's do together our best it doesn't happen. Take care, Borchica (talk) 14:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When I said it was not the respected Philadelphia organisation I was referring to the article it links to. I've explained about the fringe aspect of RANS on Osmangaic's talk page. It isn't all fringe by any means, but there have been people and groups leaving it because they object to the fringe beliefs of some of its members. See the link on his talk page, which has links in turn to Russian organisations discussing it. By the way, the reasons that Bruno was executed probably had very little to do with his beliefs about the earth and the sun, so that's a bad example. And I do think that Osmanagic got into RANS despite the fact that there are no Bosnian pyramids, and ditto the job at AUBIH. Haven't you noticed that the course he is teaching there uses fringe authors as its textbooks? It is in no way a course that any professional archaeologist would approve, just as his PhD probably wouldn't have been accepted anywhere else, certainly not by any Mayan specialists. You comment about me is unworthy of you.

I've removed your YouTube link to a CNN broadcast as it's a copyright violation. It's pretty exciting if that's where you are going. It's an obvious pyramid, completely unlike the ones Osmanagic claims to have found. Hopefully the difference will be clear to you. Dougweller (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno died because of his scientific beliefs and Galileo Galilei was tortured because he said Earth moves around Sun. For some ppl everything that doesn't fit in their box or isn't said by their best friend is fringe and hoax. Thank God there are not many ppl like this on Earth as we would still live in Middle Ages. Thinking outside the box lead to development and inventions. What some scientists were saying 20 yrs ago and they were publicly mocked is now taught in schools. The difference about both pyramids is that the one in Guatemala is partly uncovered and the one in Bosnia is getting uncovered slowly every season. Is it possible to publish the photos of some tiles and blocks and tunnels? Of course not because it violates someone's beliefs and it will be said it is primary source or it is unreliable or it is irrelevant and so on. That's like one sees a man raping a woman in the street and one covers the eyes by his hand and says I didn't see it so it is OK. That's ridiculous. But anyway there are other means to get to NPOV, also on Wikipedia. We obviously passed the first step... Borchica (talk) 18:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Malicious[edit]

What did your use of this word in an edit summary apply to? The cited text seems true to the source by the way. Dougweller (talk) 07:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It applies to malicious source. Anyway “everybody” gets what they deserve at the end. And justice ALWAYS wins. It is just the matter of time. Raw force always eventually loses. I might assume your behaviour could be unfortunate in this case and not my use of words. Borchica (talk) 14:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The source was the Smithsonian Magazine, I doubt you'll find many people agreeing it was a malicious source. You seem to have a problem with anyone who disagrees with Osmanagic. Disagreement is not automatically malicious. I'm a bit puzzled though. Do you actually support his ideas about Atlantis, Lemuria, what's going to happen in 2012, etc? Dougweller (talk) 15:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I actually support is totally irrelevant. But your question clearly indicates that you disagrees with Osmanagich which makes you his opponent. And Wiki is not about being against or pro but being neutral and allow all sources to be published. I am glad to see now how you think. The actual conditions and reality are not important. As it seems what people believe is important and then you judge all their deeds upon their beliefs. You might claim even if you were there the structures are natural. But there is no one who says that now no matter whether it is a small kid or professional archeologist, geologist, ... The question is not whether there are man-made structures and whether they are shaped like pyramids but who the hell made them and how the hell it is possible they are so old. Your thinking was based on most probably fake reports as there is no other explanation for those scientists to claim that. Where are they now? Some visited the site in 2006 and some in 2007. There is nobody form there on who was there and claims structures are not man-made. Your beliefs about 2012 and Lemuria which influence your judgment on pyramids are totally irrelevant and the whole article on pyramids is actually ridiculous. The only question that arises for me is why the hell somebody doesn't want the real facts are published. Could be it lies from some scientists who are scared the history was going to change and all their work was useless or it is just conspiracy theory. Well time is on Bosnian pyramid side for sue. If they waited 10.000 years to be unearthed a few years more won't hurt them. Borchica (talk) 06:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnian pyramids[edit]

Please revert yourself here. There is no requirement for a source to be on the web. See WP:DEADLINK which says "Do not delete cited information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published online." It gives more information on how to handle dead links. Dougweller (talk) 21:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removing sourced material again[edit]

The Smithsonian site is a reliable source by our criteria. And Osmanagic proposed this, see [1]. I've brought this up at WP:RSN where I'm asking you to justify your removal. Dougweller (talk) 21:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: ICBP (February 24)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Legacypac was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Legacypac (talk) 02:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Borchica&oldid=1079484122"