Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, Ansob, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at List of sovereign states. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. FisherQueen (talk · contribs)00:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
I simply stated facts from other Wikipedia pages, so it is neither edit war nor POV. Check edit remarks with links therein, before you jump the gun like that again. Ansob (talk) 00:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago20 comments5 people in discussion
Please do not repeat your edit to List of sovereign states. See Wikipedia:3RR and other introductory pages about editing for guidance about editing guidelines.
Regarding the substance of the matter, as I am sure you are aware, Bosnia and Herzegovina is generally regarded as a sovereign state, regardless of any unique features in its Constitution or governance. However, if you disagree and wish to discuss the merits of your edit, the talkapage of the article would be the right place to do so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
It can not be "regarded as a sovereign state" just because someone says so as that would be argument by authority. I simply stated facts from other Wikipedia pages, so it is neither edit war nor POV. Check edit remarks with links therein, before you jump the gun like that again. I prefer truth as found on Wikipedia to your opinion. Keep it to yourself, thank you. Ansob (talk) 00:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
It is not regarded as a sovereign state because "someone" says so; it is regarded as a sovereign state because almost everyone says so—more formally, a consensus of the reliable sources would take this position. As I said above, the appropriate place if you wish to continue this discussion is on the talkpage of the relevant article(s). Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
Not interested in your POV as long as it's conflicting relevant Wikipedia's own pages. As I said, keep your opinion to yourself. And please don't use the meaningless "almost everyone". Ansob (talk) 00:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
Since you are inarguably right, all you need to do is discuss it on the talk page, sharing your sources verifying that you are right. Then everyone will agree with you, consensus will be formed, and people will stop reverting your changes. But consensus on the talk page comes first, before changes. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)00:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
I had hoped this could be addressed without a block ... but in the meantime, let me ask Ansob a substantive question that might help clarify the issue. Presumably, all inhabited places are subject to the sovereignty of some sovereign state, either directly, or indirectly (as in the case of dependent territories). So if Bosnia and Herzegovina is not a sovereign state, what country is the sovereign in that location? Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
You should ask those who use the block lightly... While all inhabited places may be subject to the sovereignty of some sovereign state, this clearly isn't the case for Bosnia-Herzegovina. It is ruled by the governor (http://www.ohr.int) with unlimited powers (above Parliament, above Presidency, above Constitutional Court), who is appointed by the Peace Implementation Council (PIC). PIC is a body composed of envoys of foreign sovereigns to Bosnia-Herzegovina which is therefore a dominion where foreign sovereigns exercise shared sovereignty. So for instance, as I have been pointing out but got blocked for doing so, Bosnia-Herzegovina is not a sovereign nation because it does not fulfill all the criteria: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_state. It has been a dominion since Turkey occupied it and killed its king Stjepan Tomašević. Now, one can pretend it's not a dominion, and call it all sorts of fancy names, but that still doesn't change the facts. And facts are what serious encyclopedias should be all about. Ansob (talk) 04:27, 30 June 2012 (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).
I simply stated a commonly known fact that Bosnia-Herzegovina is not a sovereign state but that it is ruled by a foreign governor so-called "High Representative" in the name of foreign sovereigns (UK and others), and I provided Wikipedia's own links. Why should stating commonly known facts and citing Wikipedia be considered POV or edit war?! Isn't that a useful contribution, rather? Ansob (talk) 04:55, 30 June 2012 (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.
If you haven't read the guidelines to reliable sources yet, it will be helpful for you. You aren't citing a reliable source when you link to a different Wikipedia page. When you open the discussion on the talk page to try to get consensus for your desired change, you'll want to include links to the best available sources. What are the best available sources for information about the status of nations? Do those sources say that Bosnia -Herzegovina is not a sovereign nation? Explain that, and link to those sources, and you'll soon gain consensus. If the best available sources don't say that, then Wikipedia probably won't say it, either. Remember: discuss and get consensus on the article talk page first - when your block expired, you didn't start a conversation on the talk page at all. Discussion and consensus are essential to the way Wikipedia works. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)13:35, 30 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
I can't imagine a more reliable source than the foreign governor himself Valentin Inzko and his Office http://ohr.int. Some things are self-evident. Here the fact that Bosnia-Herzegovina is ruled by foreign sovereigns who then obviously share sovereignty over Bosnia-Herzegovina (appoint a person with viceroy-level unlimited powers) is a matter of common knowledge, and need not be declared by a third party. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:When_to_cite#When_a_source_may_not_be_needed. If I co-own a piece of land with my sister, and you claim that same piece of land because you live on it (even if it used to belong to your ancestors), then you don't own it until you own it, that is until we give up our shares in the ownership. Ansob (talk) 02:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
Okay, so where did the governor say, "Bosnia-Herzogovina is not a sovereign nation?" I looked at the link you provided, but it was a dead link. Can you link to confirmation that he made that statement - maybe a newspaper article about it, or the original place the statement was published? That would, you're right, be a reliable source, but it needs to be a source confirming that the place is not a sovereign nation- not just you making logical connections. Your logical connections are what's known as synthesis - they are useful for many kinds of writing, but Wikipedia can't use them. You really do need confirmation from reliable sources that explicitly state that Bosnia-Herzovinia is not a sovereign nation, and those need to be better, more reliable sources than the sources that say that it is. Remember, your goal is not to score a point in a political argument or to support your own point of view on the subject, but to accurately represent what the best available sources currently say. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)12:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
The link works with "www", so http://www.ohr.int. Obviously, a state cannot be both sovereign and be ruled by a foreign individual appointed by foreign sovereigns. Check out that link: Mr. Inzko can overturn any decision made by anyone or any office in the country, including Constitutional Court, Presidency and Parliament. He doesn't have to say "The country I rule is not sovereign", it's obvious from the existence of his office. I am not making any conclusion of or on my own as there is nothing to analyze and thus nothing to synthesize either. Those are simply the facts of the matter, and common knowledge. Your demanding links to third-party sources to "tell" you the obvious is ridiculous. Did you read other working link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:When_to_cite#When_a_source_may_not_be_needed? Are you insisting that "independent sources" must call the sky blue too? Or are you 10? To me, it's those who included this country in the list of sovereign states, who clearly do have own political agenda in this. Don't blame the messenger, I just tell how it is. Ansob (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
You are absolutely right that it's important for Wikipedia that edits be based on what is verifiably correct, and not on the political agenda of any editor. Right now, I think that you are editing in support of your own political agenda. But you're still very new to Wikipedia. If you are interested in helping the encyclopedia, I suggest, when your block expires, that you focus on articles which you don't have strong opinions about. There, you can master Wikipedia's rules and guidelines, and then, if you want, come back to edit in this subject you care so much about. I'm afraid that if you keep trying to push your idea into articles without consensus, your next block will probably be an indefinite one. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)23:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
I can tell already how your game is played. However, sovereignty is a dead serious business. And we mean business. Enjoy the next two weeks. Could get real hot. Ansob (talk) 03:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
As for your comment on Talk:List_of_sovereign_states: Inzko's speech is as relevant as a statement by a thief who broke into your house, saying you own the place though it is his to do as pleased, and even going to courthouse pretending to be the legit owner of your house. Can't you tell misrepresentation? Not interested in your reply as I can tell what it will be. Don't worry, everyone knows Wikipedia is a geopolitical weapon of big caliber. I am here for fun only. I know you and your buddies hate truth and justice. Ansob (talk) 03:44, 10 July 2012 (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).
This block is redundant as the report was false/frivolous; it would mean one can be blocked for the same thing twice. Even criminals have more rights than that: you can't charge a person twice with the same crime, let alone sentence them. To the individual(s) who made the second (and therefore obviously false) report: just what are you trying to accomplish in those two weeks?! Get serious; sovereignty is a dead serious business. Ansob (talk) 03:32, 10 July 2012 (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).
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear so here it is again: I was already blocked twice for editing the page twice. This (two-weeks) block is based on someone reporting me again for an edit that I was already blocked for. Can you show a regulation that enables you to block someone twice for the same edit? If not, please unblock. Thanks. Ansob (talk) 18:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
Decline reason:
I have no doubt whatsoever that you would immediately return to edit warring should your block be lifted. Given FisherQueen's difs below I'm surprised that the block hasn't been extended to indefinite.Jezebel'sPonyobons mots20:33, 10 July 2012 (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 made yourself clear, but you didn't make yourself correct. You were first blocked for edit warring on 29 June. When that block ended, you continued the exact same edit warring on June 30, and were blocked a second time, for 48 hours. When you started editing again on July 3, you continued edit warring, and were blocked for 2 weeks (the current block.) You're not blocked for "the same edit"; you're blocked due to your continuing edit warring. --jpgordon::==( o )18:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
Reviewing admin: note this and this, edits made today, in which the user clearly states that he is working together with other people to evade his block and disrupt the encyclopedia 'for fun' and to push his own political views into the encyclopedia. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)18:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
Those are two edits, not three. Thanks for making my point. It's also clear it is you who has political agenda here. It all started with mine simply stating that a colony (a country under a foreign governor) cannot be a sovereign state at the same time. Look where your conspiracy theories have taken you. Ansob (talk) 15:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
Ummm... FQ, how in the world did you get "clearly states" from either of those?--SarekOfVulcan (talk)
Key phrases: "We mean business. Enjoy the next two weeks. Could get real hot." and "I am here for fun only. I know you and your buddies hate truth and justice." I just can't think of anything else those phrases can possibly mean. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)19:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
Witch hunting. Only conspiracy theorists look for a meaning in expressive language. I can't believe someone like you gets to ban or even propose bans. Ansob (talk) 15:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
Oops, read those links backwards, thought they were the diffs before them. I agree he seems to be declaring an intent to disrupt and POV-push, but still don't see the "work with other people to evade his block", without reading deeply between the lines. --SarekOfVulcan (talk)19:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
No declaration here, really. Just stating the obvious, starting from the fact that a state cannot be sovereign and have a foreign governor at the same time. It simply makes no sense. Anyone who claims the opposite has either a mental problem or a political agenda. Logics, anyone? Hopefully the sky is still blue. Ansob (talk) 15:13, 11 July 2012 (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).
That's simply not true, as you show yourself below by furnishing only the links to two edits of mine, not three. Besides, as you just now claim, I am being sanctioned beforehand, for a crime I might commit. Sounds like that Tom Cruise SF flick. Scary stuff, given it's Wikipedia that shut down its Russian site as recently as yesterday in protest of online censorship. Are there any admins out there without their own political agenda, or is this place hopeless? Ansob (talk) 15:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
Decline reason:
You blatantly returned to pushing your own political POV, based on your own reasoning rather than on reliable sources, after your last block expired. You will not be unblocked unless you make a convincing case that you are going to change your approach and seek consensus before you make contentious changes. Please also be warned that repeated unblock requests that do not address *your behaviour* will lead to your losing your ability to edit this talk page until after your block expires. And if you repeat the same behaviour once unblocked, you should expect your next block to be indefinite. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:18, 11 July 2012 (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.
Actually, Boing!, it is now indefinite, and Ansob has lost his ability to edit the talkpage. He'll have to go through UTRS in the future, or appeal to Arbcom. --SarekOfVulcan (talk)15:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The Arbitration Committee has carefully considered the user's appeal and has declined to unblock at this time. After six months of not editing Wikipedia under any account including IP accounts the user may again apply to have the block reviewed.
