User talk:Overdtop

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

Cut/paste move of KK Bosna[edit]

Information icon Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give KK Bosna a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into KK Bosna Royal. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen. Thank you. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014[edit]

Information icon Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Warning for unsourced/insufficiently sourced, undiscussed and unexplained major, and seemingly POV, edits on multiple articles relating to Bosnia and Herzegovina. A single article on a website of dubious reliability isn't enough to support a claim that BiH is an "autocracy" and "international protectorate", just to mention a couple of the claims made in the edits. So discuss it on the talk pages of the articles, and get support from other editors, BEFORE making such edits again. Thomas.W talk 18:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but you are mistaken. I made rather small edits mostly in the lead or infobox. Besides the reference is of repute, the journal has its Wiki article so you can read it: Peace Magazine, and the book is published by Elsevier also of repute. Feel free to offer your references & discuss, but DON'T delete my edits carelessly. Overdtop (talk) 20:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Warning for repeated addition of WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and insufficiently sourced material on multiple articles. Thomas.W talk 20:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Citing 2 very reputable sources (journal; book) can't be POV. Stating Wikipedia definitions can't be SYNTH. Cease threatening or I'll report you for editor abuse and threats and the community can decide whether my contribution was useful or horrific as you're portraying it. Overdtop (talk) 20:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BRD: You were Bold, but were Reverted, so now Discuss it. And by all means feel free to report me, but look ut for the boomerang. Thomas.W talk 20:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, here's all the discussion that's needed: (1) your POV claim is denied by references' highest reputation you can think of, (2) as for your SYNTH claim: all I did was state in terms of Wikipedia definitions what's already been settled in relevant Wikipedia's articles. Overdtop (talk) 20:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not Wikipedia's definition but Wiktionary's, which doesn't matter though, since user-contributed websites, including both Wikipedia and Wiktionary, can't be used as references (see WP:SPS). So it's unsourced. Thomas.W talk 20:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, no. Only reputable sources were used years ago when settling the above-linked contents. You're refusing to discuss that contents though you asked for a discussion. Now, please return my edits to the state they were in before you decided to jump the gun. Or you think we must re-discuss already settled issues in each article's Talk over and over again? That's funny. Overdtop (talk) 20:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what sources were allegedly used for creating an article, other Wikipedia articles can not be used as references. Period. And if you disagree with how things work here, try changing the rules. Thomas.W talk 21:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, allegedly used? But anyway: no problem, as sign of good will I can stack up dozens of those very reputable sources from that settled article that call the regime a protectorate etc., throughout Wikipedia each time I state the type of government. Would that satisfy you? Because we're not re-discussing what's already been settled elsewhere, not because I don't want it but because the supporting reputable sources are overwhelmingly many. Overdtop (talk) 21:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you start by reading Drmies' comment on Talk:Bosnia and Herzegovina. Thomas.W talk 21:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions notice[edit]
Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Balkans, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Thomas.W talk 21:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Macedonia? I thought we were discussing Bosnia and Herzegovina being a protectorate, as many highly reputable sources state ad verbatim. By the way, thanks for the pointer to a discussion at the Bosnia and Herzegovina Talk page. Feel free to contribute. Overdtop (talk) 21:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you had bothered to read the decision on that page you would have found this: "The disputes presented in this case, while focusing specifically on issues related to Macedonia, are part of a broader set of conflicts prevalent over the entire range of articles concerning the Balkans; see, for example, the Dalmatia caseand the Kosovo case. Many of these conflicts are grounded in matters external to Wikipedia, including long-standing historical, national, and ethnic disputes in the region. The area of conflict in this case shall therefore be considered to be the entire set of Balkan-related articles, broadly interpreted.". So it applies to all articles relating to the Balkans, broadly construed. Thomas.W talk 21:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "long-standing historical, national, and ethnic disputes" reasoning reads like an exciting bedtime conspiracy theory. There is a reason why separate countries exist, it's called sovereignty. Lumping together various nations based on a conspiracy theory denies the peoples of those nations their rights to freedom. So drop the scare tactics and start discussing Bosnia and Herzegovina being a protectorate as stated by numerous reliable scientific sources, and why in your opinion it would be against Wikipedia rules to state a fact like that. Thanks. Overdtop (talk) 22:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Scare tactics"? Don't be silly, you got the notice because the rules say that editors active in areas where discretionary sanctions apply should be notified about it. So save your conspiracy theories and arguments for the talk pages of the articles you want to change. Thomas.W talk 22:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You started first, by quoting some uneducated guess in a Macedonia-related topic which has made someone reach an utterly inhumane conclusion that entire peoples need to be herder rather than observed with dignity. In that genocidal and therefore irrelevant example you cited, a well-known and vehemently opposed conspiracy theory was used, that's been around for ages. It goes something like this: "they are all wild savages in this region we will arbitrarily call the Balkans, so let's circle them with barbwire, and watch the fun slaughter". That is so ridiculous, in addition to being inhumane. For example, the use of the "Balkans" - did they mean Greece too? How about Bulgaria then? Oh well... As I already told you, stop the fear mongering with your rubbish arguments, and start discussing why in your opinion stating the regime type correctly for a country would violate Wikipedia rules. You can discuss it here as per your original suggestion, or at Bosnia and Herzegovina Talk as per your second suggestion. Same to me: I got 1000s of reliable sources, you got 0. Overdtop (talk) 22:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

??? I intend to go to bed now, and judging by your incoherent post above so should you. Thomas.W talk 22:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why the ad hominem attack? I certainly didn't insult you, did I? Your refusal to discuss in Talk pages can only mean you admit you have no case. Overdtop (talk) 22:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overdtop, you can follow the link in that templated notice yourself and see what's happening. The subject matter we're discussing certainly falls under the purview of these sanctions. You can argue geography all you want but that's not going to help: I urge you to be careful in your edits and your comments. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 00:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why would anyone trust someone's use of prejudice to allegedly fight another prejudice? Do you realize how ridiculous that is? Overdtop (talk) 01:09, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just noticed that you reverted even after being warned, after counterarguments on the article talk page, after all this on your talk page--you should know that I could block you right now for this. I won't, but next time I will. Just to stay on the safe side I'll also say that you are in edit-warring territory; see WP:EW and WP:3R. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:14, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According to your profile, you are fluent in Dutch. So let me ask you: are you Dutch? For if you are, you should not be involved with Bosnia articles, for obvious historical reasons such as Srebrenica massacre (by the same token of prejudice you use on that noticeboard for grouping all the "Balkans people" based on some Macedonia issue). Clearly, I'm asking so that I can report you for abuse of administrative privileges, again based on the same type of argument you use when arbitrarily relating Macedonia to Bosnia to Dalmatia to Kosovo to... the "Balkans". Your nationality, please? Overdtop (talk) 01:22, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overdtop, arguing that some other contributor should not participate due to his nationality is a quick route to being sanctioned yourself. I am starting to wonder why you are not blocked yet. The good advice that was left for you above has made no impression. EdJohnston (talk) 01:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry you didn't get it that resorting to pseudo-arguments works both ways. Sure Drmies can ban me, but I'm still reporting him for violation of administrator privileges. Overdtop (talk) 02:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014[edit]

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. You have absolutely no reason to modify an admin's closing statement. NeilN talk to me 02:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for modifying is simple: abuse of administrator privileges by Drmies for closing in record-breaking time in order to prevent other users to voice their opinion, such as Sabahudin9 who clearly support me and was also reverting the reported user's edits. Is there anybody here on Wikipedia who actually cares about what's right and what's wrong, what the rules are, and how they are (not) implemented?! Overdtop (talk) 02:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies is an uninvolved admin. If you have a problem with his admin actions, take it to WP:ANI after your block. --NeilN talk to me 02:32, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Acroterion (talk) 02:29, 15 November 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

abuse of administrator privileges by Drmies for closing this report in record-breaking time in order to prevent other users to voice their opinion, such as Sabahudin9 who clearly supported me and was also reverting the reported user's and his sock puppet's edits. The closing admin didn't even consider my request for sock puppet though its obvious the reported users pass the DUCK test. Finally, thousands of scholars, jurists and journalists say it loud and clear that Bosnia and Herzegovina is a protectorate but this admin misuses administrator privileges to bend the rules so much that they don't apply any more to Bosnia and Herzegovina alone, using some colonial reasoning of "all Balkans peoples are the same". User:Sabahudin9 has reverted reported editor's edits too, like here, and has said: "Everything that user "Overdtop" added, removed or changed was sourced". Overdtop (talk) 02:44, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Drmies close of the report at ANEW was reasonable and sober. There were two reverts by Thomas W and your claim of socking is not credible; it certainly does not, in any way, reach the threshold of DUCK. Edit warring over the close on the edit warring noticeboard is especially daft. Following it up with an odd rant purporting nationalist motives is not constructive. You've made no attempt to acknowledge or mitigate this poor behavior in your request or in the discussions above, so unblocking is out of the question. Kuru (talk) 14:37, 15 November 2014 (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.

Your attack on Drmies is utterly unacceptable. National prejudices of that kind are not tolerated on Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 02:32, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What prejudices? I was making an example of his prejudice by making him face one himself. Or you didn't get it? How did you become an administrator on Wikipedia if you're unable to grasp such simple meanings even? Overdtop (talk) 02:44, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You missed a whole bunch of quite elementary things with that zeal of yours (including that the one editor you mentioned who agrees with you didn't edit the Bosnia article), and one of them is that I didn't define the scope of "Balkans", ArbCom did. Duh. And don't flatter yourself: you didn't make me "face" a prejudice; all I faced was someone who doesn't realize that when you throw shit most of it sticks to your own hands, and the shit you do get to throw is usually poorly aimed. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You were blocked for a gross personal attack: your unblock request fails to address that. Acroterion (talk) 03:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that User:Overdtop "borrowed" his user page from User:Acetotyce. He even took the two GA stars at the upper right. Overdtop has not worked on either of the two articles named, Great northern tilefish or U2 360° Tour. EdJohnston (talk) 04:47, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ethnic groups in Bosnia and Herzegovina, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lexical. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014[edit]

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Acroterion (talk) 21:26, 15 November 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

This was a bad-faith block since:

  • I was permanently blocked in a record-breaking time while the case is still open so that I couldn't respond in the appropriate section of the case notice ("catch 22")
  • this is only my second block ever
  • the only previous block was actually a mildest warning-block (for 31 hrs)
  • the permanent block came right after the mildest one
  • even the first block has been made in a record-breaking time so to prevent me from participating in the blocking-noticeboard discussion on a report I filed against another user for sockpuppetry for evading 3RR (I wanted to counter the lie in that discussion that no one supported my edits though for example User:Sabahudin9 specifically stated that "Everything that user "Overdtop" added, removed or changed was sourced")
  • the above repetition of speediness supports the bad faith point
  • a relevant example of paranoid group-attack, demonstrating bad faith: in the Bosnia and Herzegovina article, that country's regime is stated as "Federal parliamentary republic" but without any references. However when I provided a highly reliable source stating the country's regime as an international protectorate, namely a review of a highly reliable book edited by a distinguished Canadian professor and published by a highly reputable publisher Elsevier, I was literally sacked. Note there are many more reliable sources that call Bosnia and Herzegovina a protectorate, and from what I can tell no reference at all that calls it a "federal parliamentary republic"; see this Talk discussion on that. Since when does Wikipedia invent facts and sacks editors who correct obvious errors?
  • another example of paranoia: I have no idea who this ancient account Bosnipidian is that I'm accused of been associated with, and no one else seems to know either. Still, some are misusing that ancient case of 5 years ago which supports my thesis this was a paranoia-based lynching sort of speak, demonstrating bad faith.
Overdtop (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Unblock requests that contain personal attacks are not considered. --jpgordon::==( o ) 01:44, 19 November 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

This was a bad-faith block since: * I was permanently blocked in a record-breaking time while the case is still open so that I couldn't respond in the appropriate section of the case notice ("catch 22") * this is only my second block ever * the only previous block was actually a mildest warning-block (for 31 hrs) * the permanent block came right after the mildest one * even the first block has been made in a record-breaking time so to prevent me from participating in the blocking-noticeboard discussion on a report I filed against another user for sockpuppetry for evading 3RR (I wanted to counter the lie in that discussion (which said that no one supported my edits) by stating the fact that User:Sabahudin9 stated that "Everything that user "Overdtop" added, removed or changed was sourced") * the above repetition of speediness supports the bad faith point * a relevant example of bad faith: in the Bosnia and Herzegovina article, that country's regime is stated as "Federal parliamentary republic" but without citing sources. However when I provided a highly reliable source stating the country's regime as an international protectorate, namely a review of a highly reliable book edited by a distinguished Canadian professor and published by a highly reputable publisher Elsevier, I was sacked. Note there are many more reliable sources that call Bosnia and Herzegovina a protectorate, and from what I can tell no reference at all that calls it a "federal parliamentary republic"; see this Talk discussion on that. According to its current rules, Wikipedia is supposed to state facts * another example of bad faith: I have no idea who this ancient account Bosnipidian is that I'm accused of been associated with, and no one else seems to know either. Still, some are misusing that ancient case of 5 years ago. Overdtop (talk) 16:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I have far better things to do with my time than giving a point-by-point refutation of every off-topic comment in that wall of text, and I expect all other administrators have too. However, the unblock request addresses neither the reason for the block nor the reason given for declining the previous request. If you do the same again you may well find your talk page access is removed, to prevent you from wasting yet more administrator time. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:58, 20 November 2014 (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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Overdtop&oldid=1079465429"