User talk:Tudor.raneti

Hello, Tudor.raneti, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place  on this page and someone will drop by to help. Red Director (talk) 03:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Your first article
 * Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
 * And feel free to make test edits in the sandbox.

Help me against vandals
My articles are being vandalized. I already caught two vandals: Biruitorul and Yilloslime, and reverted their vandalism, but I suspect they will keep coming at it. Their vandalism is obvious by the fact it's not only unmotivated deletion of content but impossible to justify

The articles targeted by these vandals are https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Court_of_Romania and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_of_Romania

Since I'm a new wikipedia editor I need you to help me against vandals because I don't have the experience fending them of. I believe I should obtain protection of these articles since banning the vandals one by one won't help, they will just keep coming from other accounts or make new ones

Also because I exposed a huge criminal organization and its activity, I suspect vandals will keep coming against these articles from the criminal organization's ranks, as I have the experience of being obsessively censored before on various media, the same without any justification, which is why it's lacking here

Thank you


 * Stop reverting right now, please, or you will be blocked for edit warring. Drmies (talk) 00:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * OK. Where to start. Editors aren't "vandals" because they reverted you, nor are they part of a conspiracy or whatever because they disagree with you. Reverting on a matter they are an expert in is silly. The text you added to the two articles is argumentative, and Wikipedia is not a forum. Your edits lack secondary sourcing, meaning they are no encyclopedic because they are not properly verified with secondary sources. You are more than welcome to expose criminal organizations, but NOT on Wikipedia. Now, I strongly encourage you to read over guidelines and policies, linked above in the welcome template. If you continue to edit as you did before, your career here will be short, I'm afraid. Drmies (talk) 00:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Block Drmies, Biruitorul and Yilloslime for proven vandalism which by definition is deleting wikipedia content without a syllogistic justification. A proper and only logical argument motivation structure to contribute to wikipedia consists of a particular premise correlated with an universal premise such as a law or regulation, and a logical inference, in other words a syllogism, which is verifiable and true according to wikipedia regulations. Since deleting wikipedia content without justification is vandalism, the users doing it must be banned Tudor.raneti (talk) 01:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC) EDIT: I'm also pointing out at the obvious wikipedia rules: "The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia" that mean Drmies, Biruitorul and Yilloslime, and all others who delete content without justification or even worse obviously lying to make up for lack of justification, is clearly malicious and must result in block. Also according to this wikipedia article, "Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring", meaning Drmies is beyond vandalism and pathological lying, he's breaking wikipedia rules on purpose attempting to manipulate by making illicit threats such as "you will be blocked for edit warring" Tudor.raneti (talk) 01:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You should take a look at WP:Verifiability, WP:Original research and WP:Identifying reliable sources; two of those policies are mentioned in the quote you give above. What you wrote had no sources that are reliable by Wikipedia's standards and was unverifiable. Such content can (and should) be removed; that's not vandalism. You're also personally attacking other editors. That also violates one of Wikipedia's policies. Finally, you should take a look at our policy on conflicts of interest. It's good that you try to expose criminal behaviour in Romania, but that means you have a conflict of interest regarding the allegations that you raise. You shouldn't edit Wikipedia regarding that topic. Surely there are other ways in which you can contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia. Huon (talk) 01:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Block Huon, he's lying that "What you wrote had no sources that are reliable by Wikipedia's standards and was unverifiable" because my article is criminal investigation grade, being examined by the European Court on Human Rights, International Criminal Court, on which I provided the original petitions, INTERPOL and other organizations that would've had me convicted for the felony of False declarations, so my credentials are of ultimate authority.
 * Documents hosted on Scribd are not a reliable source because everybody can upload anything there, without meaningful editorial oversight. If you accuse me of lying, then prove it - quote the relevant policy or guideline of Wikipedia that says documents are reliable because the author hasn't been convicted for false declarations. If the various courts have examined the case you brought them, then surely the courts have published their verdicts. The media will have reported on those verdicts against a country. Those media reports would be useful sources for Wikipedia's purposes, not your petitions. Until such sources exist, you may want to take a look at WP:Alternative outlets - it appears Wikipedia simply isn't the right venue for your work. Huon (talk) 02:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Okay, that's enough. You're making baseless accusations about other editors and without sufficient evidence and simply because they disagree with the edits you've made to the two articles you've contributed to. That's not acceptable behavior, and it's not going to be tolerated - especially if you refuse to listen to the input, warnings, and recommendations that other editors have repeatedly left you. You need to stop, take some time, read the messages that other editors have tried to give to you, and work with others to get help and resolve the issues that have been pointed out to you. edit warring and being disruptive is not the proper way to resolve the issues and the dispute that you're involved in. You need to follow Wikipedia's dispute resolution protocol and locate reliable sources to cite in-line with the content you've been trying to add. Thank you.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   02:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Tudor.raneti, don't say I didn't warn you. "Pathological lying"--you're saying I am "breaking wikipedia's rules" when it is clear that you really have no idea what Wikipedia is and how it works. I tried to explain a few things to you about sourcing, but I suppose you thought you knew it already. That you would be blocked was more a prediction than a threat, and it wasn't illicit, of course. Drmies (talk) 02:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Reply
Sorry! I am not an administrator nor an expert on the topics to give a good opinion. Looks like you have been addressed above though. Red Director (talk) 01:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

March 2019
Your recent editing history at Constitutional Court of Romania and Judiciary of Romania both show that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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 you being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   01:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Please stop
Please stop filing reports like the one you created here at Administrator intervention against vandalism. As you've been repeatedly told here and on the user talk pages of other users, the removal of content is not due to vandalism, but because you have not cited any reliable sources to support the content you've been trying to add. I highly recommend that you stop for a bit, read the messages that other editors are trying to leave you, and listen to their input and advice. They're doing this for your benefit and to help you... :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   01:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

March 2019
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. 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:.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   01:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

 Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive. ([ block log] • [ active blocks] • [ global blocks] • [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/autoblock/?user=&project=en.wikipedia.org autoblocks] • contribs • deleted contribs • [ abuse filter log] • [ • change block settings • [ unblock] • [ checkuser] ([ log]))

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC) --UTRSBot (talk) 20:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)