User talk:Bosniak Atheist

Welcome...

Hello, Bosniak Atheist, 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: Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Help How to write a great article Manual of Style

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and ask your question there.

PS: Some pages you might like to check out are:


 * Welcoming committee/Welcome to Wikipedia — main welcome page.
 * Introduction -- Wikipedia introduction page.
 * Tutorial -- Wikipedia editing tutorial.
 * Questions — the "where to ask questions" directory.
 * FAQ — quick answers to the most common questions.
 * New contributors' help page — a place for new users to post questions and get answers by volunteers who monitor or frequent the page.
 * Help desk — where volunteers answer questions on how to use Wikipedia. Many new users go there for help too.
 * Adopt-a-User — where a new user can be adopted by an experienced user who will be his/her mentor.

I am a totally new user to Wikipedia.
Please post here anything useful such as regulations etc. I will read them carefully.


 * Since you've asked (and based on your contributions), you should definitely read through:
 * the "neutral point of view" policy ("All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias");
 * the "no personal attacks" policy ("Comment on content, not on the contributor");
 * the "verifiability" policy ("Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source");
 * the "reliable sources" guideline ("Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"); and
 * the guideline regarding canvassing over issues ("To avoid disrupting the consensus building process on Wikipedia, editors should keep the number of notifications small, keep the message text neutral, and not preselect recipients according to their established opinions");
 * --Ckatz chat spy  17:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Creating the Bosniak/Croat/Albanian/Montenegran/Macedonian/Hungarian/Turkish Lobbyist group which will oppose the SerboGreek aggression on Wikipedia.
This is where Bosniaks and those who want to help Bosniaks will gather to create a Lobby group for Wikipedia to promote Bosniak perspective. Please sign in below, and gather as many people as possible, when there is more than 10 people, we will start putting forward our perspectives on Wikipedia pages, until then we shall comment only on non-XYU subjects. Please note that only competent English language speakers may apply. We are also compatible with non-Bosniaks such as Albanians and Croatians, who are victims of Serbian favouring aggressive Wikipedia editors. I propose to unite us all, to defeat Genocide denier's and minimizers. Bosniak Atheist (talk) 16:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll help you as far as Srebrenica Genocide Denial goes because i think it's a discrase that Serbian nationalists and apologists get so much space on wiki(and internet in general) to spread their lies,diceptions and crap.Being a member of a lobby group of any kind is just not my style.But i'm always in for helping fighting those people who's only fuel is hate and only goal creating hatred towards other people.Internet is exactly what Serbian nationalists need to spread their crap to wide audiences 'cause their fascist views are not accepted on TV and other mainstream media.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 17:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, you're absolutely right, please check this page often with watch, for when we get enough users to run a viable consensus on Srebrenica, and we will all help each other in other issues. It might be great if we had a instant communication method too, when we get enough members we can form a chatroom on a chat network. Bosniak Atheist (talk) 00:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You can count me in :) -- C D  15:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please remember to observe our core policies. Kingturtle (talk) 03:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI thread
Hello!

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that I started a discussion thread concerning your edits. You can read it at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Regards, SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Some advice
Hi! Welcome to Wikipedia. I think I was, in a way, like you: when I first came to Wikipedia I saw articles that did not exist or that were seriously wrong or incomplete or biased, and I began editing to fix what I saw as real problems. Many people come to Wikipedia for that reason.

That said, I need to warn you - and this is a serious warning, but I make it with the best of intentions and I hope you recognize this - that the way you explain your coming to Wikipedia leads many people to be concerned that you are going to violate some core policies here. Please understand our policies are not "for" or "against" any particular view, they are not "anti- human-rights" or "anti-Bosnian" for example, they are policies that are meant to provide a framework for people with very different views to work together peacefully (sort of) in writing great encyclopedia articles. Specifically, the way you wrote your userpage, many people are going to think you are planning on violating WP:SOAP and WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND (follow the links to see what I mean).

The best way you can avoid violating those policies is to rigorously follow this policy: WP:NPOV so I implore you to study this policy before editing.

That is my main advice, I urge you to take it seriously. I have a little more, it is up to you whether you follow this advice or not but it is very well-intentioned. Wait a month or two before editing any articles or creating any new articles about genocide or the Balkans. Instead, use that time to learn our policies by studying them, and also learn how we work together by watching how other articles get edited. Pick a topic you absolutely have no feelings about, and start writing an article on it. You can bet some people will edit what you wrote, some may even really disagree with you or think you are violating policies - but since you do not really care about the topic, you won't feel wounded or angry, and this will be great practice for you. Pick a couple of other articles that already exist, including some controversial ones, but again, ones where you have no personal feelings or political position. Refer to our core policies to research the topic and edit the article. You will certainly come into conflict with others and this will give you more practice in learning how to apply our policies and how to collaborate with strangers, including strangers who do not share your views. Do this for one month, or two, and you will learn a lot that will make you an effective editor. Then start working on the articles you care about. My point is, wait until you have proven yourself an effective editor to your own satisfaction before you work on articles you are passionate about, because when you work on those articles you want to feel confident that you really understand our policies and how we improve articles and collaborate. I am sure you already know quite a bit about genocides and the Balkans, but you have admitted that you don't know much about editing Wikipedia. I am just suggesting, take a month or so to learn and practice Wikipedia, and then start writing about the stuff you really know. You will be more effective and your work is more likely to last (remember, anything you write can be edited or deleted the next second by someone else - the whole point of our policies is to help people work under these challenging conditions, and the point of my advice is to help you reach a point where your edits either will not be reverted, or, when they are, you will respond in a constructive way).

I know this is hard advice to follow when you really care about something, but if it makes sense to you I urge you to follow it, I promise you it will serve your interests in the long run.

I posted a welcome message up top, with many links to pages you should read and reflect on as you get to learn the ropes. Good luck! Slrubenstein  |  Talk 14:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Great advice, I shall follow closely. Thanks. Bosniak Atheist (talk) 14:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Good luck! I would like to see a much more diverse (diverse backgrounds, diverse views) community of editors here, but someone new who does not know the ropes can easily get into lots of conflicts and it doesn't matter if you are right or wrong, you will get worn down and then quite which does no one any good.  Better to take time to learn the ropes, and edit controversial or contentious articles only when you really understand the policies and have solid and positive editing experiences with other, easier articles.  Then you won't burn out, and may stay around a lot longer! Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

blockable offences
I have removed your mention of a "lobby group" from your user page. Lobby groups that try to use numbers to coerce an outcome on Wikipedia, whether it is good or bad, usually damage their own cause here on Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia Signpost/2008-05-19/Wikilobbying.

If a group of editors starts to "OWN" a topical area, we consider them a Tag team, watch them more carefully, and start banning them from editing the topic that they love so much whenever they show signs of operating together.

Also, going around harrasing other editors, like you have done at User_talk:Jonathanmills, is strictly forbidden. Please understand me - If you attack another editor like that, I will ban you from ever editing Wikipedia ever again. This is not a battlefield - this is an encyclopedia and there is never any need to resort to directly attacking another editor like you did. Discuss the content; discuss the changes; dont attack the editor, or even try to guess their motivations.

I strongly suggest that you stop trying to "fix" the bias that you are seeing - stop fighting over the main heavily contentious articles. Focus on improving the rest of the encyclopedia around the problematic area, and slowly work on the more difficult topic. For example, regarding this this edit is vandalism unless you explain your edit properly on the talk page. So rather than removing it again,
 * Who is this "Anthony Harding", who published an article in British Archaeology, and what are the standards of that journal? These are auxillary topics which you can research and document on Wikipedia, and then that information can be accessed by your fellow Wikipedians when they reflect on whether this specific journal article should be used on Wikipedia.
 * take a look at our article about "European Association of Archaeologists" - were they really recognised by the Council of Europe? If they were, there should be an official document from the CoE, and Wikipedia should have that document reference number or a hyperlink. If you cant find it, maybe the Wikipedia article about this organisation is incorrect, in which case we should re-evaluate where we have quoted them - perhaps their viewpoint is not as important as it seems.
 * Also, you removed a citation to http://subrosa.dailygrail.com; according to our article "Sub Rosa", we dont have an article about that magazine, so it could be that the magazine isnt worthy of being used as a reference. See Special:LinkSearch/subrosa.dailygrail.com, which shows which Wikipedia pages mention that website.  I strongly suggest that you present a meaningful discussion about this "Sub Rosa" magazine at Talk:Bosnian_pyramids, and convince the rest of the editors that it isnt a good scholarly resource, and should not be used.

What I am getting at is: the most effective way to work is slowly and methodically as an individual. Do not be a ringleader for a group of people that try to fix everyone at once. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

November 2008
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Your edit summary which said 'Serbs, go back to Russia' is entirely unacceptable and you will be blocked if you continue to do this dougweller (talk) 07:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)