User talk:Ban kavalir

Possible edit war at Triune Kingdom of Croatia
Hello Ban kavalir. Your edits have been mentioned by User:KIENGIR at User talk:EdJohnston. This looks to be a complaint about a possible edit war at Triune Kingdom of Croatia. The way things are going on that article does suggest an edit war in progress. This means that admins may have to take some action unless the local participants can work something out. You can respond on my talk page if you wish. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 00:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello Ban kavalir. You have been using the word 'sabotage' a lot at Talk:Triune Kingdom of Croatia to refer to edits by User:KIENGIR. Admins are likely to consider this a personal attack. Unless you moderate your tone soon, you are risking a block. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are available to all good-faith editors who are willing to keep their temper in check. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Answer

Dear EdJohnston the user User:KIENGIR has on purpose sabotaged the article so it could be reverted to a more bias or personal stance of his, contrary to scientific objectivity and historiography. I have explained in the TALK page the ways the user has committed this, by using false arguments and fabricating sources (links and maps which are not associated with the given subject or era, as an example). As the user has not contributed in any way to the article and has committed sabotage in changing the text and leaving old sources which didn't correlate with the new bias text. My contribution to that subject via creating the article, content, sources and media have been in 99% of that article and the majority on the content on the subject of Croatia during the 19th century. If you wish to lose an editor which main scientific and research subject is that era, by promoting unacademic and unprofessional behavior mentioned before by the mentioned user, then be free to do so.

SY dr.sc. Ban kavalir (talk) 17:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keeping in mind WP:ASPERSIONS, please withdraw all the personal attacks against KIENGIR in the above, or I will proceed with a block of your account. You may have valuable knowledge in this area, but if you can't negotiate properly, your experience here will be disappointing. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

2nd Answer

Dear EdJohnston no personal attacks have been made, user User:KIENGIR was not contacted or was confronted even on his personal page (like the user did on mine). All the stated is in accordance with the provided material and references to unacademic and unprofessional behavior by the user which resulted in sabotaging the article to make it more bias (see TALK page). Also in the same talk page the user uses words like  the user just repeats some failed rant (and people here dont rant) which are unlike the ones mentioned before, insults of personal nature. If you wish to continue down the path of supporting such unacademic types of editing articles, be free to block me. I have been an editor here for 5 years and unlike my academic peers and colleagues who take this project as a place not for academics since such sabotages like the one done by User:KIENGIR are promoted and supported by the administration.

If this proceeds I will no longer continue to edit on Wikipedia, as well as revoke my position and all participation and support in the Croatian Academic Wikipedia projects (were academics and students attribute by editing articles in accordance with academic and scientific standards) like did my colleagues and students from the Wikipedia projekt studenata odsjeka Povijesti umjetnosti Filozofskog fakulteta (Wikipedia project of students of the department of Art history of the Philosophical faculty) due to the same reason of supports of sabotage of articles, unacademic and unprofessional behavior. You will lose a person which contributed to 19th century Croatia in one week more then the whole project did in years and support a person who deleted texts and sources to make a bias article in which he did not contribute not even by one quote.

SY dr.sc. Ban kavalir (talk) 23:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion elsewhere
Though you haven't chosen to respond on my talk page, I've made a couple of article suggestions at User talk:EdJohnston. In particular, I noticed the lack of English language sources in the article. It's not my job to decide on article content, but I welcome negotiation among the editors concerned. EdJohnston (talk) 15:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

March 2019
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Central Europe. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and 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 Wikipedia. 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. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Dr.  K.  23:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Central Europe; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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: 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. IamNotU (talk) 05:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Discretionary sanctions notice about the Balkans
-- Dr.  K.  06:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Continued personal attacks
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for Personal attacks or harrassment. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Since my warning to you at 17:25 on 13 March, you have continued to use the word 'sabotage' when referring to other editors in your edit summaries. To be effective on Wikipedia you have to be willing to negotiate, a thing that appears foreign to your thinking so far. The topics where you are insulting others and reverting their changes fall under WP:ARBMAC, an area that is often disturbed by nationalist passions. If you change your mind and decide to start following our policies, please let me know. --EdJohnston (talk) 14:44, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Dr.  K.  05:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Dr.  K.  05:32, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Block
You've been blocked for 2 weeks due to edit warring. When the block expires, please take your concerns to article talk page/s. El_C 09:43, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry
Ban kavalir, regular admins can't check IP addresses, but in any case it's not so difficult to edit from another address. How do you explain the fact that a brand-new user,, suddenly appeared three days after you were blocked, who seems to have deep knowledge of and agrees with everything you've said, in opposition to the other editors, and who has reinstated your edits and supported your arguments against deleting an article you wrote ? As noted by the admin that turned down your second unblock request, that is quite a coincidence!

Not only that, but the new user has written in many cases nearly the same sentences as you, with the same idiosyncrasies and mistakes in English usage, that you've made in the past and in other articles:


 * Ban kavalir: ...in Croatian historiography as well as legal system it is regarded as a separate state era due to...
 * KnezBorna2: ...Croatian Historiography puts as a politically separate era due to...


 * Ban kavalir: ...is a different era and state entity then the ones before 1848...
 * KnezBorna2: ...is a separate political period then the one before 1848...


 * Ban kavalir: ...Bias and personal views are not the same as academic and professional standards...
 * Ban kavalir: ...researchers and their scientific and professional contributions...
 * KnezBorna2: ...goes against scientific and professional standards...


 * Ban kavalir: ...User:Havsjö, who in terms of changing articles to bias stance, had deleted entire sections of sourced texts in MULTIPLE articles!...
 * KnezBorna2: ...The article on 1848 has 34 sources on that period, while Havsjos bias version HAS ONLY ONE!...


 * Ban kavalir: ...there are his more chauvinistic statements on Croats and Croatia...
 * KnezBorna2: ...more than clear that motivation is of chauvinist nature...
 * KnezBorna2: ...Havsjö baseless claims ... can only be described as chauvinism...

I'm sorry but your denial is not really believable. Please see also WP:DUCK. You may want to remove your latest unblock request, as it may lead to you being blocked from editing your own talk page. --IamNotU (talk) 16:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


 * This is slam-dunk sockpuppetry. . Thanks for the analysis IamNotU. Dr.   K.  21:11, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Once again I don't have other user accounts which you can check via my IP account. Nor do I have any means to be part of a project that would undermine objectivity and professional academic standards. Have thought that maybe Croatians know more on Croatian history then do people who in a bias form vandalized the articles I mentioned. Now you have an entire article with 40 source being changed to an article with one source which is a web page. It seems that some users backed by other admins have quite some bias purposes and that Croatian editors are targeted and standards of Croatian historiography undermined. Once again check the IP address and you can see that there are no other accounts. The thing I can tell is that I will be no longer participating in this project and am working on a press release with dozens of my colleagues which will publicly from a scientific point of view (which is not held by uneducated editors in this fields like Havsjö and his puppets) review all the articles which are now vandalized and from a official point of view by the Croatian Academy of Science and Arts, Croatian institute of history, University of Zagreb ect held as bias and unreliable sources which fail academic standards. Me as a member of the Croatian Scientific Society have been in all good interest involved to make this project better in academic terms. I have added more then 100 sources in 3 articles which were raised to academic standards. Only to watch them being vandalized by the mentioned user and then be attacked by a group of editors around that user. I'm only waiting for the ban to be lifted to edit my Profile page to list specific unacademic and bias recording done to vandalize specific articles by users not educated in the fields of Croatian historiography (specially the case of fabricating sources which the administrators turned a blind eye when it was reported) SY dr.sc. Ban kavalir (talk) 00:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)}}
 * To the reviewing admin: Four things are most striking in this unblock request: 1. It is not an unblock request but a wide-ranging polemic. 2. The statement The thing I can tell is that I will be no longer participating in this project and am working on a press release with dozens of my colleagues... indicates that the user has no intention of participating further in this project. 3. He still attacks a specific editor as "uneducated" and other editors as "his puppets", "vandals" etc. 4. The last paragraph: {{tq|I'm only waiting for the ban to be lifted to edit my Profile page to list specific unacademic ... indicates that he is waiting to be unblocked only to convert his userpage into a WP:POLEMIC against other editors. The above points indicate that the best outcome at this stage is to upgrade the block to indefinite. Dr.   K.  01:12, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Dear Dr.K. I agree you can block me for good since after years of my membership and contributions to this project I have been harassed by editors around the vandal Havsjö. When you get a Master or PhD degree specializing in the fields of Croatian historiography then you can talk to me on academic standards of articles regarding that fields and subjects. Uneducated people in the mentioned fields, who delete an entire article with 40 sources relating to researchers and change it into a bias unacademic article WITH ONLY ONE WEB PAGE SOURCE are welcomed!!! And after started blocking me even when I'm not active, and even when my IP address is only linked to this profile I used. You have shown yourself to be a puppet of user Havsjö in terms of attacks with no proof, no academic standards and no sources. Have in mind that the user Havsjö has been vandalizing articles, fabricating sources (WHICH IS PROVEN) and than started attacking academics and professionals in this specific field after he was confronted with facts, didn't use the talk page, WAS NEVER BANNED for the mentioned ect. You all are a disgrace to this project and you all are proof why Wikipedia is red flagged and banned from academic usage even by students. Last entry SY dr.sc. Ban kavalir (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC) PhD in Humanistic sciences, specializing in Croatian history, culture, art history, naval history, heraldry ect
 * Neither of these are unblock requests. Talk page access revoked. OhNo itsJamie {{sup|Talk}} 21:24, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not claim that it should be used as an academic source; in fact, we say quite the opposite. So that's not news to us. 331dot (talk) 02:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not the only issue with these belligerent messages. Aside from the PAs, this is the first time that I see a sockmaster inverting the sockpuppetry argument against him, and calling all his opponents "puppets". If that attack alone, and there many more, does not warrant an indefinite block, I don't know what does. Dr.   K.  19:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Ladislav pl. Kiš for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ladislav pl. Kiš is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Ladislav pl. Kiš until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Alsee (talk) 21:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)