User talk:Idsocol

Please talk nice. All the material that I put there was referenced and your comparison with Mein Kampf is totally unsupported. There are either published books by independent 3rd parties or documents that are kept in museums (you can visit the museum from Alba Iulia to see the the Declaration of Union if you like). Could you please provide any support at all (even Mein Kampf) for things like the name "Szekely Land" suggests an autonomus land? You are agressive and not in the spirit of Wiki were facts are important and not our feelings.

Sorry mate, but if put bullshit on the page somene will delete it sooner or later. Or to be more clear, if you reference something to Mein Kampf it probably doesn't make it right.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Idsocol (talk • contribs)

Please don't delete referenced material from the article Transylvania while adding unreferenced information. Thank you. Squash Racket (talk) 16:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned your behavior at WP:ANI simply asking them to revert the changes to the infobox, deletion of referenced material etc. Squash Racket (talk) 17:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015[edit]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Székely Land. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015[edit]

Your recent editing history at Székely Land shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Amortias (T)(C) 20:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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:Idsocol reported by User:Amortias (Result: ). Thank you. Amortias (T)(C) 20:36, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've already reported you and Scalhotrod.

Edit warring at Székely Land[edit]

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 think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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.

The full report is at WP:AN3#User:Idsocol reported by User:Amortias (Result: Block, semi). Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:18, 6 April 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

EdJohnston, The info I posted is correct and referenced. I tried to discuss and find out is wrong to correct myself the information when it was reversed 1st time (left messages to both Scalhotrod and Amortias), but all I received back was that I posted bullshit referenced to Mein Kampf. So offensive reply instead of constructive talk. I believe that the current situation is unfair as useful and correct information is not accessible to users and the person who is willing to discuss constructively is banned, while people who deleted the info without reason and were agressive are untouched.

Decline reason:

It may be more helpful to actually read our edit warring policy and discuss your understanding of what you did incorrectly. Focus on your own behavior and not that of others. As it is, it does not appear that you understand why you are blocked, and it would be unwise to unblock you. Kuru (talk) 11:07, 6 April 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

Kuru, I'm not in my youth anymore: the wiki spirit & rules didn't work; don't send me back to them. My reaction was just a response to what happened. I posted referenced and correct info and it was deleted without any reason (which I believe is against wiki rules). Still following rules I tried to discuss with people that deleted and come to a common point, but they didn't replied or didn't replied constructively to me (which is against wiki rules again, please see posts on their talk page). Then I reported the incident to the incident's noticeboard, but nobody helped me with the issue. So there I was, I could have let it pass (and deny wiki users quality info) or I could have tried to signal that something doesn't work. I did the latter, although I admit it was unorthodox. However, the reason for unblocking me is not above; the reason is the fact that I'm willing (I always was) to change anything in the info added (presently still deleted) or even not post anything at all if someone discusses with me and tells me what is wrong with it. Until then, banned or not, I'm still a wiki contributor (and I have been for a long time without being ever banned), and I want to know what's being done about my complaint on deleted post without reason. :)

Decline reason:

I'm declining your request as, based on what you've said, you were edit warring. In future, I suggest following dispute resolution instead of edit warring. PhilKnight (talk) 18:38, 6 April 2015 (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.

Comment Could you advise where i was asked to advise what was wrong, also I think if either myself or Scalthrod had compared your editing to bullshit referenced to Meinkamp we'd have been blocked in the blink of an eye. It would be advisable to strike these comments or provide evidence of them. Amortias (T)(C) 08:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Amortias!

This is what I put on Scalthrod's talk page under the subject "Szekely Land": Hi, man! Why are are deleting referenced material? If you do so at least explain your change and provide reference to it. Thanks, ID — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idsocol (talk • contribs) 17:05, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

This is what I put on your talk page under the subject "Szekely Land": Hi, man! Why are you deleting referenced material? Thanks. ID — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idsocol (talk • contribs) 20:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC) - No reply

This is what it's on my page: Sorry mate, but if put bullshit on the page somene will delete it sooner or later. Or to be more clear, if you reference something to Mein Kampf it probably doesn't make it right.

I don't want an edit war (never did); I just wanted to draw the attention on the subject, hoping that someone would talk to me seriously. Now that I explained everything I don't think it's fair to be banned (or only I to be banned).

ID

I've had a look back and can see the following:

[1] This diff where the reference to Mein Kampf was added by yorself. I repeat my advice to strike this claim that is quite obviously untrue.
You were advised repeatedly that your additions were considered unsourced. See [2][3][4][5].
You may want to take advice from the policies the administrators have linked to above to ensure your up to date on current policy and how to make changes that arent readily accepted - this is quite a useful one as it details what to do if an edit is reverted.

Hopefully this answers some of your queries. Amortias (T)(C) 19:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Amortias!

1. It might look like this, but it wasn't. This simply doesn't look like my English wording. This makes me think stuff about how wikipedia works and why people that deleted referenced material are not blocked. If I'm wrong, I'm sorry, but this is what I really think. 2. Unfortunately the materials were sourced and you can see the reference in the history. I contacted both you & Scalthrod on your pages and either I got no reply or I got no explanation why is considered unsourced. Still don't know why. I also asked Scalthrod this on my page. 3. Thank you for the advice. Maybe you'll find the time to answer all of my queries (i.e. no. 2).

ID

Hi - with regards to the issue about sources. There are literally millions of pages on the internet possibly billions. Unfortunatley not all of these pages are considered reliable for using to reference material. The same applies for newspapers book, other published works etc. Just because it has a source this doesnt mean that it is considered to be a reliable source. If your unsure if a page or publication is considered reliable the best bet to check is over at the reliable sources noticeboard where editors with much experience in this area can advise. Amortias (T)(C) 17:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Please look at the changes done by Cyberbot II. The sources deleted are official census and official topographical measurements, while the information left is referenced to an unrealiable source, Minahan (there is already a debate about this on the talk page). Nevertehless, I didn't deleted Minahan's reference, I just added something referenced to official data and it was deleted. Would you please review the situation and take some action (i.e. revert Cyberbot's changes)?

Thanks, ID

April 2015[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will from now on. Idsocol (talk) 13:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2016[edit]

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on Talk:Székely Land. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Dschslava^Δxparlez moi 00:37, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]