User talk:SciPedian

This is SciPedian's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

November 2018[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bosnia and Herzegovina. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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 and 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 engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:36, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a mistake. I've never reverted anyone's edit, so I'm not engaged in an edit war. Instead, I contributed 3 scientific references that list Bosnia and Herzegovina as a US-led international protectorate, instead of an unscientific reference by "CIA Factbook" that claims the country to be a federal republic. Also, no one can find a single scientific reference that corroborates the CIA claim. Finally, no one else offered any counter-argument either. SciPedian (talk) 15:05, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See this and this, reverting this. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:33, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They are 2 different editors, who made 2 different edits. No edit war obviously. So what's the problem with contributing scientific references where there were none previously? SciPedian (talk) 16:15, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two edits that added up to a revert of your addition. Please see WP:BRD (and WP:SOCK). Cordless Larry (talk) 16:48, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what those rules say. Can you quote the exact part of the rule that corroborates your censoring of scientific references in favor of a biased and unscientific CIA reference? SciPedian (talk) 16:51, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Bosnia and Herzegovina, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 16:53, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted my edit with a commentary in which you accuse me of "cherry-picking sourcing." That could hold if there were any references previously, but in this case there were no secondary scientific sources whatsoever, and the only source was by CIA. Also, you did so without citing any rule that you allege was violated so no one can really tell what's meant by "cherry-picking sourcing." Please either provide the exact rule that has been violated in this case or stop censoring my good-faith addition of 3 new scientific references where there was none previously. SciPedian (talk) 16:59, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice[edit]

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 recently shown interest in 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 any 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.

Acroterion (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Acroterion (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

The blocking editor is trying to censor my good-faith contribution of new secondary scientific sources in the Bosnia and Herzegovina article that state the country is a US-led protectorate, where there was none such reference (the only type allowed by Wikipedia) except for an unscientific reference by CIA claiming the country is a "federation." That's turning Wikipedia into a fake encyclopedia, especially because now the blocking editor(s) added a reference that allegedly parrots (no one can tell for sure as there's no free access) the CIA claim. Even so, why can there be only one sci ref saying the country is a federation, but none (of so many out there) saying it's a US-led protectorate?! So who's cherry-picking sources now?

Decline reason:

None of this is remotely relevant. You are blocked for violating WP:SOCK and WP:EVADE. That and only that is relevant here. Please read WP:GAB to understand how to craft an unblock request. Yamla (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2018 (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.