User talk:Asdisis

Your recent edits

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) 00:11, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Asdisis, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Asdisis! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Nathan2055 (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:07, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:TPG and indent your comments

Please read WP:TPG and indent your comments when you post on a talk pages. It makes it difficult to follow a thread when all of your comments are not indented and you insert multiple blank lines between sentences. Thank you.- Mr X 16:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tesla

Just ask Director to list the sources that support his claim. Then list your sources. Whoever has better sources has the stronger argument and ought to prevail. And yes, scholarly consensus trumps a single primary source.--Atlantictire (talk) 13:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

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) 16:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your talk page posts and do not change time stamps

Please sign your talk page posts when you first write them by typing four tildes like this: ~~~~ Waiting for SineBot to add your signature and changing it later is disruptive. Also, you are not supposed to change time stamps. Please stop doing this. Thank you.- Mr X 13:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Sometimes i forget to sign and add a signature when I notice. I will try to correct it. Thanks for warning me. Asdisis (talk) 13:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tendentiousness

Asdisis, you had your say at the Tesla talk page RFC. You had your say when you asked me to change my closure. You had your say at the ANI. Enough is enough. When you can't convince others with rehashing of the arguments again and again and again, you go beyond mere discussion. Please drop the issue. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 17:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, in my opinion this is a new discussion which does not contradict the RfC, in fact it goes along with it. If that is not the case in your opinion it would be advisable that you state that clearly in the discussion. That will close it, and I won't make any more suggestions. I do not understand why you avoid to give a clarification which would help the discussion a great deal. Asdisis (talk) 19:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

Your recent editing history at Nikola Tesla shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. 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. Favonian (talk) 20:08, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Favonian:, I apologize. I'm a new editor, and I haven't yet had time to get familiar with all the rules. I supposed i can imitate more experiences editors who were doing the same thing. They reverted my edit with poor and invalid explanations so i reverted them. I guessed that I can do it as long as they do it. It seems that they intentionally lead me to breach this rule. However I note that i started the discussion on the talk page a day before the edit. I find that I was intentionally lead to breach this rule since the discussion was open, and I could have been warned there, since the editor who I discussed and who reverted me knew that I do not know the rules yet. I apologize once again. Asdisis (talk) 21:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I would like to ask you your advice. I find that some people have teamed up and intentionally made a biased article about Tesla. Since they are the majority, their edits can't be reverted. Is there some way to fight that, or I should admit i can't fight them alone. Take for instance FkpCascais' behavior in This discussion. He keeps repeating his claims and refuses to give and source to support they, while on the other hand he accuses me on nationalistic agenda, although i presented numerous sources. You see that he does not want to work on consensus, does not want to clearly establish the dispute. His whole behavior is intentionally disruptive. I plead him to support his claims with sources, he refused. I tried to reason with him, he refused to answer a simple question (find "Again, please, focus on my question" quote from the discussion). Asdisis (talk) 21:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Balkans

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Balkans, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

If you engage in further inappropriate behaviour in this area, specifically with regard to repetitive tendentious claims on Nikola Tesla's origins with no clear purpose that benefits the readers, but apparently disrupting Wikipedia to make a point as a "retaliation" for discussions where you were in a minority, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article/topic ban. Thank you. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Joy:. I was not engaged in inappropriate behavior. I haven't made a single claim about Tesla's origins. My requests are beneficial to the readers. I was in minority, however that doesn't mean I'm disruptive. In fact, I presented few dozens sources, that's at least twice more than all others combined together. Retaliation? You will have to further explain your allegations. Also, I haven't edited Balkans, could you explain that as well. Asdisis (talk) 23:27, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You said that he should be delisted as a Serb from Croatia, and that the church his father belonged to was not the Serbian church. Given the mainstream opinion of him, *in Croatia*, is that he was in fact a Serb, these claims are just plain WP:FRINGE, or at best WP:UNDUE. This falls squarely under the provisions of the Balkans arbitration ruling because this is the kind of petty nationalist nonsense that is specific to Croatian-Serbian relations. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I referenced the discussions of ANI and RfC and only started a discussion and left for editors of that page to decide. Although I do not agree with the decision, consistency is important. One article can not tell the opposite of the other. Discussion about his father belonging to SOC which was created in 1920, decades after Tesla's father died and even after Austro-Hungary seized to exist contradicts common sense. I think that RfC is logical way to resolve this inconsistency. Again you will have to explain the rest of your allegation. I never put in question Tesla's Serbian origin. I should note that I find your attitude is lead by nationalistic agenda. I conclude that from your strong objections unsupported by sources. And your wrong allegations that I in fact have nationalistic agenda, and that I have some claims towards Tesla's origins. That is obviously false. I had not made a single claim about Tesla's origins. Your fear that i have is obviously driven by your nationalistic agenda. Asdisis (talk) 12:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid the entire pattern of your edits is indeed such that you appear to be putting in question Tesla's Serbian origin. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please, show the pattern, and explain in detail. My explanation is that you have a nationalistic attitude and because of that you see everyone as a treat. I have been objective and some other editors, including you have been biased. Asdisis (talk) 15:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Badgering

Please stop repeating the same arguments and badgering other editors by responding to every comment that does not support your POV as you did here. As you have been told before, this is very disruptive. If you continue to use talk pages in this manner, I will bring the matter to WP:ANI, although I suspect an admin will block you before I even have a chance. You may consider this your final warning.- Mr X 13:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the warning, maybe you can warn other editors for the same thing. Asdisis (talk) 14:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Show me another editor who has made 269 edits to the same talk page about the subject's nationality, in less than six weeks, and I will.- Mr X 15:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please, repeating of same arguments is not determined by number of posts. Read the RfC and you will see other editors repeating the same arguments. I was involved into discussions with editors who are lead by nationalistic agenda, thus I posted many comments. However i also posted several dozens sources, unlike them. Asdisis (talk) 15:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

This is to inform you that there's is a post on ANI that may concern you. Regards -- Director (talk) 18:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Asdisis (talk) 20:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistent disruptive editing. 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 adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Randykitty (talk) 12:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RFC challenge -- wrong page to post on

By adding into the IPs comments, and by ignoring the instructions posted in the section about the proper procedure to challenge an RFC closure, you are being disruptive. Please revert your edit. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 23:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC) To clarify, it is not proper to respond either way to the IP comments. The RFC is closed and we do not go and re-argue the issue again and again on the talk page. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 00:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for persistent disruptive editing, as you did at Split, Croatia. 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 adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Randykitty (talk) 10:33, 15 August 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

My edits have not been disruptive. I reverted Director several times, but I also opened a discussion. My conduct in the discussion was not disruptive, as can be seen in the discussion Here. I lead a perfectly normal discussion. Asdisis (talk) 10:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

On the contrary, your editing has been extremely disruptive. If you persistently edit war, you will be likely to be blocked again. If you continue with your practice of persisting in repeating the same arguments endlessly, after it has been made abundantly clear that consensus is against you, then sooner or later you are likely to be blocked indefinitely. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:25, 15 August 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

I made some reverts, however the main point of interest is the discussion I opened. I made no more than 3 reverts, and actively engaged in the discussion. The consensus is not against me, and I haven't repeated the same arguments again. Consensus has not been reached. I can't see how the discussion i led can be viewed as disruptive. Asdisis (talk) 20:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Based on your request, I think if I unblocked your account, you would continue in the same manner as you have done so far. I suggest that in future you should establish consensus on the talk page, and avoid edit warring. PhilKnight (talk) 22:45, 15 August 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

@PhilKnight What manner? I led a perfectly normal discussion. I made 3 reverts and that's all. After that I engaged in the discussion. I made those reverts on 13th of August. For two days after that I participated in the discussion. I stopped with reverts on time and engaged in the discussion. How could have I known that a discussion is needed for such a simple edit? After a few reverts, I saw that and stopped with reverting and engaged in the discussion. I also made less reverts than Director who was only warned. I'm now eliminated from that discussion and, since I'm the only major participant who supports one side of the discussion, the outcome is known. Explanations for banning me for as much as 2 weeks are vague. I haven't breached 3RR and I had led a perfectly normal discussion. I haven't engaged in edit warring. I only reverted Director because of his explanation that he is establishing a status quo pending a consensus. If you unblock me, of course I would continue to participate in the discussion. What is wrong with that? Consensus is exactly what I'm trying to establish by that discussion. How can I be banned because I haven't established a consensus in the middle of the discussion, trying to establish a consensus? Asdisis (talk) 01:13, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It is odd that you claim that you were not edit-warring, but you describe your actions in a way that IS edit-warring. If you make an edit and it gets reverted, you do NOT get to revert or else you're edit-warring. The concept is WP:BRD. You do not have to hit a 4th revert to be edit-warring, your first revert was sufficient. Please CAREFULLY read WP:EW and WP:3RR - they are very different, although related. the panda ₯’ 11:14, 16 August 2014 (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 weren't edit warring? Here you are edit warring, from 24 July to 13 August: [1] [2] [3] [4]. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

Still, I got 2 weeks and Director got only a warning, for more reverts than me. I described what happened. I stopped with reverts and engaged in discussion. I still do not know the reason for such a punishment. Asdisis (talk) 12:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You still don't get it, and it looks like you never will. You have a prior history here, and clearly violated 3RR; whereas it could not be determined with enough certainty that Director did. That's why he got warned, and you got blocked. It has nothing to do with who made how many reverts. Since you have continued to hammer away on this these across four unblock requests even though it should have long ago been apparent that you had no case (ahem), I'm going to have to revoke your talk page access for the duration of the block so you won't be wasting any more of our time. Thank you. — Daniel Case (talk) 18:25, 16 August 2014 (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.

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 • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation 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 you have already appealed to the Unblock Ticket Request System and been declined you may appeal to the Arbitration Committee's Ban Appeals Subcommittee. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Daniel Case (talk) 18:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tesla

Dear Asdisis,

thank you for your invitation, I left one day and a total "flame" have arisen. I could not contribute as much I think as you'd expected, but I added a few answers, because I met again non-valid things. I appreciate your struggle, I tried to help with the best aim, really official historical documents should be cited in original, than maybe. Although you did it almost with the source from Zagreb, they should accept it, since in Croatia Hungarian citizenship was not put, Austrian could not remain, so what you state, called "Hungarian-Croatian - Croatia-Slavonian" or anything else should have been introduced. The "ip address" debating with you seem no real friendly aims. Fkcapcais seem not to like any source with Croatian roots. The greatest joke would be, if the claimed Yugoslav citizenship would be existent only because Tesla's suggested Croatian-Slavonian citizenship was automatically turned in 1918-1921 period to Kingdom of S.H.S citizenship and Yugoslav afterwards from 1921...becuase he resigned the Austrian, but never the suggested Croatian-Slavonian...don't tell this theory to Serbs, because they will get a heart attack :) Regards (KIENGIR (talk) 23:40, 31 May 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Thank's for you objectivity. Fkcapcais has a strong contempt towards Croatia. I participated in the discussion about Tesla's birthplace and he opposed the suggestion in the same manner he does now. The difference was that I used not a single Croatian source. Go trough sources stated on the article page and you will see that a great majority says Tesla was born in Croatia. He opposed, and he opposes now. I'm glad his misconduct is recorded. Asdisis (talk) 00:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Hi Asdisis. I'm not sure you realize it, but the volume of your comments on talk:Nikola Tesla, many of them repeating the same arguments, has become disruptive. It is because of your near-constant argumentation about Tesla's nationality that I took the page off my watch list several months ago. I was surprised when I took a look yesterday to see that the situation had actually become worse! For example, you have already made ten verbose posts in the RfC which I posted less than a day ago. Ironically, I posted the RfC to try to curtail the sheer volume of comments from users like you who's sole involvement with the article is narrowly focused on Tesla's nationality. In the past three weeks, you have made an astounding 90 posts to the talk page, entirely focused on Tesla's nationality.

In my opinion, your involvement with this topic has been wholly disruptive and tendentious. I am asking you to stop reframing the question, starting new sections, repeating the same arguments, using original research and otherwise inundating the talk page with your personal views that Tesla was Croatian. If you can't exercise self-control, I will seek a topic ban, however given your editing pattern, I would not be surprised to see you banned altogether.- Mr X 14:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree and apologize. I tend to answer a lot, but that is done in good faith, although it can be disruptive. This is a complex discussion and it would be wrong to confine it to a predefined number of words, but I agree and I will try to reduce my comments. I haven't been active on wikipedia's page for a long time up to this recent discussions, not I participated in any discussion about Tesla's nationality in the last few months. You must be mistaken. Yes, I agree that the situation is pretty terrible and that is why I advocated people present sources instead of clogging the discussion, however some editors presented not a single source and yet posted numerous comments. That further clogs the discussion. Ok, I agree and I will reduce my posts as much as I can. Please do not try to present the legit discussion about an opened question as narrowly focused. I had not started this discussion but KIENGIR a year of 2 ago. He had also reinstated the discussion and not me. Everything is documented. Yes I made a lot of posts on the discussion I'm participating. I do not think even you will agree I would have time to participate in yet another discussion. I tend firstly to resolve this one and then open a discussion I had been announcing for month. I haven't even planned to open this discussion but KIENGIR had gave me a push when reinstating it. I think I have been doing everything in good faith and I agree I should reduce my comments since it is really time consuming. However you do not even know how time consuming was the research I did for this discussion. At least twice of what I spent discussing so please respect that too. I had not nor do I now claim that Tesla was Croatian. I will take your suggestion seriously and reduce my posts to minimum. If posting a lot although done in good faith is something wrong I have to disagree. Asdisis (talk) 14:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I don't believe you. If you call 13 additional posts in the past two days, including another to the RfC, "reducing" your comments, then you really should not be editing in this topic area. This is a perfect example] of not dropping the stick - Mr X 12:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I made a significant reduce, from 90 to 13. I had also reduces the length of my comments. Another RfC in completely another place is irrelevant. People participating in that another RfC had not complained I post too much and I had apologized in advance for too many posts. Please note the difference between too much posts in the context of being disruptive and too much in the context of extensive and hard debate. This is not the same, but I accept your argument and I will working on reducing that number to be even lower. For instance I already moved 2 separate discussions from Tesla's page to the user's talk pages. One of which you can see below. I apologize again but it's hard to participate such hard discussion when I'm confined by the number of posts. Also your counting of posts is rather imprecise since it seems you count every edit on a single post as another post. Also it seems you are counting just my posts. There is another user that made 12 posts in the same period, so if we compare it to my 13, it isn't so bad. Again, I take your warning seriously, and I'm doing everything I can to reduce the number of posts and the length of individual posts (and this is also important so the discussion is not clogged). Asdisis (talk) 23:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Citizenship issue

Dear Asdisis,

as you asked, I made a contact, however I made two replies on the Tesla page, why these two secondary sources does not prove the claim. Anyway, of course I am supporting to make everything clear, feel free to tell you plans about co-operation. Regards (KIENGIR (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you. Let's first start with an example. Let's say we have a person who lived his whole life in the land of Hungarian crown. Up to 1867 he had Austrian citizenship. I think we agree upon that. In 1867 a Hungarian citizenship was introduces for all lands of Hungarian crown. Do we agree that the same person had Hungarian citizenship after 1867? We can take Tesla to be that person. Asdisis (talk) 11:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We don't agree, because, as I stated more times, not ever in history there was no Austrian citizenship for Hungary, not before 1867 or similar. Never. The proofs are presented in the Austrian Empire, Royal Hungary and Austria-Hungary articles. The "lands of the Hungarian Crown" is considerable only, although it is including Kingdom of Hungary itself, practically it exist from Kingdom of Hungary (Transylvania included, only later, after the Turkish invasion the Eastern Hungarian Kingdom was formed that turned later to Principality of Transylvania) Kingdom of Croatia. The autonomous kingdom of Croatia, regarded by us a separate country with personal union, the Austrian citizenship may occur, because of thorough Austrian interventions, I am not a specialist of this. Only Principality of Transylvania could remain...with Hungarian leadership and administration, with Habsburg leadership with Hungarian administration, etc. Only here may have any Austrian citizenship possible, by the control of Vienna, although the principality was inherited through the Hungarian Crown and acknowledged as a Hungarian hereditary land, but was administered separetely from Kingdom of Hungary until 1848/1867. Kingdom of Hungary's status never changed, as regnum independes that Austria could never have lawfully, the only thing the King could do not to make the Diet to make assembly's but the constitution and independent Kingdom's rules never could be changed. The Austrian Empire was not a federation or state or something. Practically, non-legally those territories were shown that is ruled by the Habsburg/Austrian Kings, but the Kings nationality had no connection to the country. Even the Austrian Emperor regarded Hungary as a separate country, the only connection is they had the crown. Nothing more, Austrian citizenship never ever had been introduced, to say nothing of it was legally impossible, since Hungary was regnum independens and the Hungarian Diet decided everything. Thus, assuming Tesla was born an Austrian citizen, if he did not resign on this he could never be a Hungarian citizen, but I do not exclude after 1881 automatically he gained Croatian citizenship, without knowing how would it affect his assumed his Austrian one.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Enough

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. FkpCascais (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for WP:NOTHERE, pursuant to ANI discussion. 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 ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 17:34, 5 June 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).

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

Request reason:

I would like to appeal, but I don't understand the reason I was banned. Some say that "this has gone on long enough" and others think some RfC is being repeater which is not the case. Also FkpCascais made a lot of false claims. I would like to report him for accusing me of having nationalistic motives and sock puppeting with no objective reason to do so. I would also like to briefly reflect on his claims. The location of my IP address does not matter. My motives do not matter, and i reject his assertion. I do not have other accounts and I hope I can't be accused of that without any objective reason. I have been challenging an edit made on May 10th (I think) that was introduced by me and KIENGIR. No sources at all were presented for that edit. I made only 2 edit requests on Tesla's page besides this one. One was accepted, and the other one yielded no consensus. 3 edit requests are not much in a period of more that 1 year. Yes more discussions were opened but only for 3 requests. I backed up my claims with sources in every case. This user had presented only 1 source in all of the mentioned discussions. So the question is, upon which arguments had he objected in every discussion. In all of discussions combined I presented more the 3 dozen sources. Furthermore you can go to the discussion about Tesla's birthplace and see that this user used SYNTHESIS extensively to object my secondary sources. I did not know of that rule back then, and I tried to lead a discussion with him. Even in this discussion this user bot uses SYNTHESIS to object to my suggestion and accuses me that I use SYNTHESIS to construct my claims. He is lying that a consensus has been made regarding this edit. I and KIENGIR introduced that edit without any secondary source. It is all documented on the talk pages. FkpCascais has misrepresented the case, and I hope that there will be objective people to read the discussions on talk pages and then make a conclusion. Also you can go and look at the first discussion I opened. From the very beginning this user accuses me of nationalistic agenda which is the worst ad-hominem attack in a discussion like this one. My plea is to read the whole discussion because the user that reported me has misrepresented the case. In fact he is the one that is disruptive, it's just I'm not well familiar with Wikipedia's rules so he uses that against me. The clear example is SYNTHESIS which he used extensively in the previous discussions against me, and he is advocating I'm using SYNTHESIS. I may be guilty of some claims, but the case is misrepresented. He even directly lied I'm objecting to an edit made by consensus. This is a direct lie. He also lied that I'm opening the same discussion that was already discussed. Regarding some other claims. I never advocated to change Tesla's nationality from Serbian to Croatian. The one that started with ad-hominem attacks is FkpCascais. I hope there is an objective person to go trough the discussion. "He has refactored and reorganized other editors comments on the Talk page to appear to support his." This is also incorrect and I would like to see that claim be supported with a link to the edit. Asdisis (talk) 20:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Looking at your last 500 edits, I'd say this block was long overdue. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:43, 5 June 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.

Asdisis, do you not understand the reason for your block because you have not seen this or because you don't understand the reason in the block notice? There was no mention of sockpuppetry in the block notice. Your unblock request will be declined as you've written it. Perhaps you should delete the request and seek advice before posting another. Tiderolls 21:19, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Drmies gave the reason you were blocked, because WP:NOTHERE. persistent, stubborn disruption at one single article. As long as you don't take responsibility for the disruption you caused and continue to put the blame on other people, you will not be unblocked. I'm not an admin, I just have read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks and you are doing everything in your power to ensure that your block will not be lifted. Read the guide, understand what it is saying and try again. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disregard the last comment. I won't appeal, but I will make a final statement regarding my experience with Wikipedia.

I joined a year ago and started a discussion about Tesla's birthplace. I presented several dozen secondary sources that state Tesla was born in Croatia. People mostly objected with the reasoning I now found out constitutes a case of SYNTHESIS. I also presented one primary source of Tesla stating himself he was born in Croatia. Also another user had now presented Tesla's highschool diploma that under homeland stated "Croatia". If I'm pushing POV then I have to conclude Tesla himself is, and a lot of secondary sources.

I think Tesla's highschool diploma is a valuable and interesting document but I don't think it will be included in the article because it states Croatia as Tesla's homeland and Croatian as Tesla's mother tongue. Croatia is a taboo word it seems.

I apologize for my many comments, however no one is asking how much time i spent in those discussions and how much time I spent investigating for sources. Yes I posted many comments but I backed up all my claims with sources.

I'm glad the discussions are documented. I presented more than 3 dozen sources.

Some users used my ignorance of Wikipedia's rules extensively against me. Most notably FkpCascais who in the previous discussions used SYNTHESIS to disprove my claims and in the present discussion claimed I use SYNTHESIS to prove a claim.

I opened a separate RfC to determine if my claims constitute SYNTHESIS and I'm glad people participated, but I'm disappointed the last question (6) got no answer because that is what the whole case of rejecting my claim on the question of Tesla's birthplace was based upon.

Discussions I participated , for the most part, had only objections and little good faith to resolve the questions.

I was constantly being "accused" that I'm Croatian or that it is something wrong to state Tesla was born in Croatia. I was strongly guided by Tesla's own statement "that he was born in Croatia".

I do not have a sock puppet account nor will I make one. I didn't even know what the term sock puppet means the first time I was accused of it.

I think someone would need to go chronologically trough discussions to get the whole picture of what happened, but I doubt people have time to do so. However I'm glad all discussions are documented even though no one except me will study them.

I want to wish you all the best, even to the editors who pushed their own POV. The truth is what the majority says it is. If someone convinces himself in a lie, then the lie to him is the truth. I'm just disappointed I do not think like the majority, since it would be easier for me to do so.

I apologize for the trouble I caused once again. I haven't planned the discussion about Tesla's citizenship, but KIENGIR had make me interested in it. I agreed Austrian should be stated, but when I saw the sources I felt I made a wrong decision.

Goodby to you all. Asdisis (talk) 21:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't understand what you're complaining about. The article clearly states that Tesla was born "in the village of Smiljan, Austrian Empire (modern-day Croatia)", so why are you complaining that it does not say he was born in Croatia when it clearly does? And why are you complaining that the word "Croatia" is a taboo word when it clearly isn't being excluded? Mr Potto (talk) 12:26, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please, don't engage me, we already established that I will answer, and I will be banned from posting on this talk page as well. Regarding your claim, you are wrong. I'm banned so you can ask FkpCascais to explain it to you if you are really interested. He can also explain his claim how Tesla lied when he stated that "he was born in Croatia" (to paraphrase him) and why his highschool diploma is false by stating Croatian under his homeland. You can also go trough sources listed on the article page and find out that a great majority explicitly say Croatia, but FkpCascais can explain why they are wrong using SYNTHESIS like in the discussion a year ago, back when I did not know what SYNTHESIS is. Having said that I strongly advise you not to get involved.

Also I do not understand why a certain editor stated in the ANI that I "have refactored and reorganized other editors comments on the Talk page to appear to support my[claims].". That is a direct lie and I can not understand why he said that, and no one had asked him in the ANI to provide a link to that edits. That was taken for granted, and the ANI lasted for 1.5h while I was away. I was banned even before it finished. Even before I had a chance to participate.

Lastly, some people are now satisfied I'm banned, at least there is no one to post too much sources. I thank to Michael Cambridge for all the sources he had presented, and I apologize to him being accused he is my puppet account, just because he agreed with my stand. Asdisis (talk) 16:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if you don't want to explain why you are complaining about the article not saying he was born in Croatia when it clearly says he was, goodbye. Mr Potto (talk) 17:11, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can explain, but what's the point now. If I wasn't able to change it to state Croatia with several dozen sources, Tesla's own statement, and now his highschool diploma, I doubt it will be changed. The reason is that it does not state that Tesla was born in Croatia. Doesn't the fact that this formulation was advocated for by the people who are strongly opposing the fact that Tesla was born in Croatia tell you anything? The present formulation states that Tesla was not born in Croatia but that that territory later became Croatia (although I'm happy to see people misinterpreting it to the actually correct statement), so Tesla has no connections to Croatia at all. If it were like you state then there would be no objections to change it from "today's Croatia" to "Kingdom of Croatia, Austrian Empire". Maybe you are not familiar with this topic but the present formulation is a standard formulation used in Serbian nationalistic circles to negate Tesla had any connection to Croatia. Someone on the talk page suggested Croatian Military Frontier, but I doubt that will be accepted since it contains the word "Croatia", although Michael Cambridge presented excellent sources. Maybe it is better not to be accepted since it will make new discussions open to remove it. I supported to state Croatian Military Frontier in previous discussions, but not as a part of compromise with nationalistic circles that negate Tesla was born in Croatia and claim Tesla lied when he stated so. Goodbye to you to, I'm sorry you had not participated in the discussions before, but if you are interested all of the discussions are documented and stored so you can read it all. Best regards. Asdisis (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for explaining specifically what you meant - that is all I was really asking. Mr Potto (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, best regards. Asdisis (talk) 19:07, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Asdinsis, can you stop talking about me and ask yourself a question why most senior editors agreed with me and some even thanked me for finally putting an end to your madness? Also, why you ignore the entire list of sources which were presented to you by me and other users? How can you claim I didn't brought sources when I actually provided several sources, some of which were fundamental for the article and are used in it? How is that you ignore the zillion of sources presented which say he is Serbian and was born in the Military Frontier? Are you aware that the article of Tesla is actually followed by numerous neutral senior editors and you claim they are all wrong? You are misusing the talkpage just to continue your rant and attack me (why me? As if I was the only one opposing, or is it because it was me who finally got the patience to report you?). You are very polite, but that is just a good disguise for your intentions here. Also, I will just explain to you the issue about WP:SYNTH. Everyone is allowed to use it in discussions at talk-page. But we are not allowed to use it to make changes in the article, which was what you were pretending with the issue regarding Tesla "local citizenship". You presented some sources talking about that issue, and you were screaming that it meant that Tesla must have had it, which is absurd, but lets move on. Since you don't have even one source saying Tesla had it, the entire discussion was useless cause we don't know what (if any) "local" (?) Austro-Hungarian citizenship he had. So stop victimizing yourself and continuing to distort what happened and to pretend you didn't knew things or you didn't understand them, cause this was one of the cases where I saw maximal patience and everyone explained everything to you optimally well, you were the one not listening but that is no ones fault. You dislike me, but other senior editors explained even better than me the disruptive attitude you had, and you should indeed reflect on that... or not... up to you. Please feel welcome to remove my comment if you wish so. FkpCascais (talk) 20:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I got banned so everything you did is fine? It doesn't work that way. You accused Michael Cambridge that he is my sock puppet just because he agreed with me. I see some people continue to post on talk page. Will you accuse them to be my sock puppets? Is that the reason you came to my page, because you thought IP guy in the discussion is me? You already accused him of being Croatian and you had accused me multiple times of being Croatian, as if that is something wrong. I find that "insult" to be the worst experience I had with Wikipedia. I never stated my nationality, now you tell me, what is the name for your "accusations" that I'm Croatian? Have you used SYNTHESIS to conclude that from my IP even though no sources specifically spoke of me? You know, Serbs and a bunch of other national minorities live in Croatia, not to mention that every summer people come to live there. Me getting banned does not make that all right.

I mentioned your allegations here because in the manner North Korea deals with people who talk too much, I had no chance of participating my "trial". The ANI was opened at 15:51, I was banned at 17:36 (who knows when the editor saw the opened ANI) and the ANI was closed at 21:54. No one had read the discussions you referenced, and one editor even lied I "have refactored and reorganized other editors comments on the Talk page to appear to support my[claims].". That was taken for granted. Asdisis (talk) 22:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that people really need to accept consensus once it is reached. You showed your sources, other sources were brought, Tesla article s not some lost unknown article with no editors but rather a busy article with numerous veteran editors, they weighted the sources and arguments and made a consensus. You cant endlessly try to convince people. And unfortunately, yes, seems that in Croatia there is some historical revisionism about Tesla going on (I looked at Tesla article and talk-page at Croatian Wikipedia, dear Lord!) sorry, to say, but that is not good at all. I hardly believe that you talk about the Tribute to King Alexander and pretend not to understand what he is saying there about the Serbian sacrifice and heroism. Read about King Alexander, about Maček, about the struggle between monarchists and Croatian autonomists, the (un)popularity of King Alexander among Croats, be objective. Also, please read about Military Frontier. Things were not at all as you are saying. You may not believe me, but I struggle against all nationalists. In football for exemple I prevent Serbian editors from naming "Serbian" footballers that come from Bosnia. I created several articles of Croatian footballers, I supported a peaceful settlement which would not Serbianize Ivo Andrić, etc.

Regarding the refactored and reorganized other editors comments on the Talk page you know very well you did that several times! You were called your attention to it! I even forgot to mention that in the report. And what you want to say with the timmings of the report? I actually announced you I was going to report you and did it right after it, it took me just the time to write it. And I posted the notice on your talk-page immediately. There was nothing else I could do. Call you to your mobile phone? FkpCascais (talk) 23:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus regarding the edit from May 10th and you know that very well. There was not a single source presented for that edit and you know that very well. Me and KIENGIR introduced it and you know that very well. You haven't objected because Croatia was not mentioned. I agreed with Austrian, I haven't pushed Croatia. When I opened a discussion and asked you to join since I know you object, you ignored it. You could have then present sources, you choose not to, but to leave the edit from May 10th completely without sources. Then I opened RfC for days you objected, then finally you produces one source when another editor started asking questions how no sources sustain the edit from May 10th. You claim that I did not accept the SYNTHESIS argument, while I had and I opened another RfC to help us with that. If someone goes back and sees the discussion about Tesla's birthplace, they will find you had no problems using SYNTHESIS, not even that but completely unfounded claims.

You can read the sources I presented but you choose not to, and deny everything I quoted. Yes, maybe Wikipedia's rules prevent me, but I proved which citizenship Tesla had. National citizenship was determined according to local and local citizenship was Croatian-Slavonian (that just proves Military frontier was a part of Kingdom of Croatia in the legislative sense). If you read the sources, you would find how citizenship was determined. Tesla could have only Croatian-Slavonian local citizenship. You choose not to, and if it helps you live satisfied you denied Tesla's connections to Croatia, that's ok, but at least say to yourself that you are subjective. Ask yourself, why didn't you read the sources? I do not know why are you trying to convince me that you are not subjective with those examples above. Maybe you are trying to convince yourself.

I saw the discussion you had with IP guy. You thought he does not agree with you so you immediately started accusing him of being Croatian (as that is something wrong), nationalist and so on. I wrote the comment here and saw the rest of the discussion there. You thought that was me. I guessed it right that is the reason you came here to my talk page. I knew it because I knew how subjective you are, and an editor that shows conveniently after I was banned that says something you disagree with must be me in your eyes. I think that proves how subjective you are. Even now you probably think that may have been me, just to show how you conduct yourself towards people that do not agree with you and how opposite you react when they agree with you.

I do not see the relevance of Tesla "saying there about the Serbian sacrifice and heroism" to the question of his birthplace. The sheer context that if he says that then he must be lying that he was born in Croatia can be derived only from a contempt towards Croatia. You are only deluding yourself by saying Tesla lied when he said he was born in Croatia. Should we again count what the sources listed on article page say about Tesla? A great majority says Tesla was born in Croatia. How do you explain Tesla's highschool diploma lists Croatia under homeland? It seems it would need to list Military frontier according to you.

I had moved few comments to a new section. I had not "refactored and reorganized other editors comments on the Talk page to appear to support my[claims]."

I guessed correctly why you came the first time here to my talk page. But for now, I think you come here to convince yourself that you are not subjective and that you do not have a contempt towards Croatia. You know you haven't discussed in good faith. Ask yourself, have you looked at the sources? No you haven't even opened to see if the link is correct. I also think that from about a half of the discussion you saw that I make too much comments so you engaged me so I make them a bit more so you can report me. I knew, or at least suspected that, but my ban will serve as an example. I don't blame the people that banned me. They haven't even read the discussions you referenced, but I blame you. Your intention was to ban me from long ago. Yes as you said you see yourself as someone who "struggles against all nationalists" and you regarded me as a nationalist, so every mean was allowed to get me blocked. Well the only one who is nationalistic here is you. You proved that once again in the discussion with the IP guy. You didn't even look where his IP address is coming from, you just assumed and accused. All is documented and maybe someone objective goes trough those discussions. At least you and I will know what happened.

Lastly, Nikola Tesla: "I was born in Croatia". He was not involved in nationalistic arguments because he felt he belonged both to Croatians and Serbians. Both sides tried to get him on their side, but he stayed out of that. Your attempt to negate his connections to Croatia is just what he would not want. If you respected him, you wouldn't try to do that. I never negated his connections to the Serbs, not I negated that he was not Serbian, but Croatia was his homeland. As I said, the truth is what the most people say, and Tesla here constitutes a minority. Well not to me. I respected his opinion and tried to introduce it in the article. Asdisis (talk) 02:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, the "consensus" is the current state of the article. Second, you say "Tesla could have only Croatian-Slavonian local citizenship." You don't know that! Our conversation ends here. All the best for you. FkpCascais (talk) 14:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, great, now not a single article on wikipedia can be edited, because all are a product of consensus and that can't be questioned. Again, you repeat a lie you stated in the ANI. Once again, the current state ("reached by consensus") of the article was changed without consensus and without any source by me and KIENGIR, yet you did not object then. You only objected when the word Croatia appeared. It's all documented. I've done what I can. Too many people like you had gathered around this article, and I knew I had little chance to change anything, but at least I could expose how it got to the current state. Yes I posted too much but I was objective the whole time. Maybe I was even pushy, but I was objective the whole time. Since this is the last comment from me to you I will just repeat some of your "arguments" from the last discussions.

(1) "After 1918 he had double nationality, American and Yugoslav"

Completely made up.

(2) " I guess having some citizenship it needs to be from a sovereign country"

Not done in good faith because you obviously knew neither Austria or Hungary were sovereign. And you advocated for Austrian citizenship.

(3) " Military Frontier which was a multi-ethnic Crown land of the Austrian Empire. "

Also made up in bad faith, just to introduce ambiguity.

(4) "and by saying he was born in Croatia, in fact he is making a sneaky political game"

Interpretation derived from subjectivity. We very well know Tesla stayed aside of Croatian-Serbian disputed, and took no side. He had not played sneaky political games. If you read any literature about Tesla you would know that he had not played sneaky political games.

(5) "why is then that you think that Tesla wrote a tribute to the Serbian king which was so unpopular among Croats?"

This question can only ask someone with contempt to either side. This shows that you think someone can not both respect both sides. You obviously do not know anything about Tesla. You see a tribute to one side as something that is opposed to the other side.

(6) "And you presented tones of croatianhistory.com, Croatia.com Croatia this and that sources which have zero value"

No I did not present those sources. And notice the was you said that those sources have zero value. You asserted that from the names of the pages. If you actually went to look the sources you would find a bunch of Tesla's original documents that can't be found anywhere, and I know because I looked. Tesla's highschool diploma, his naturalization papers certainly do not have zero value. I think most people would be interested to see how well Tesla did in school, but to you that has zero value because as you state "Croatianhistory.com, Croatia.com Croatia..."

(7) "Second, you are providing sources about studies done in the Zagreb university (not really scholarly published sources) about citizenship during A-H period"

Again with the contempt. Also it's a lie they weren't published and you haven't even looked to see how many footnotes the sources contain. No, it all has zero value, but the source that states Tesla "stated Austrain" as his citizenship, in half a sentence without any footnote is of great value.

(8) "and third, and maybe most important, we know what your final intention here is, which is to say Tesla was Croatian, and we have seen you trying to get there through various ways,"

Ad-hominem attacks.

(9) "obscure Croatian sources"

Contempt.

(10) "we don't fucking care about writing about national and local citizenships if we don't even have a source linking any of this with Tesla."

Well it's always good to have the broader view on the question, but you don't ***** care about that.

(12) "We don't care what some assistant professor in Zagreb university says about local citizenship, if it is not related to Tesla"

Contempt.

(13) "you don't give a dime for Tesla"

Opposed to someone accusing Tesla of sneaky political games against which he stood firmly.

(14) "Your entire fight here is just because you hope to convince everyone that Tesla had Croatian-Slavonian "local" citizenship so you could next claim he is Croatian."

Subjective suspicion about my motives.

(15) "unpublished writing of one assistant professor from the University of Zagreb, Croatia."

A direct lie. I presented more that one source. Also you made up the claim about author.

(16) "it is not strange to find people in Croatia doing their best to present some sort of independency and power Croatia had while under Habsburg rule. That is why some non-local sources are preferable."

Contempt, instead of providing sources that contradict mine. So Croatian sources are by default invalid.

(17) "If there were "local" citizenships, he could eventually gain Austrian one as MF was directly ruled from Vienna and regarded as direct Austrian dominion"

A proof you had not looked at the sources.

(18) "You claim not to speak Croatian, right? Can you tell me how do you use Google translate in a picture? I would like to know "Mr. Cambridge"

Someone that agrees with me, must be me. No he can't type the word in the translator...

(19) "Anyone can see this IP contributions and see from where this comes from"

"Accusing" another editor of being Croatian because you though he does not agree with you. Not only that but you haven't even seen the location of IP address.

(20) "Cause otherwise this will never stop until we don't put a huge Croatian flag in top of the article"

Contempt. It is wrong to even suggest some phrase containing a word Croatia should be included.

(21) "Lets not forget that telegram was cordially sent to Croatian Vlatko Maček "

The attempt to disprove the content of famous Tesla's telegram. The telegram is mentioned in many secondary sources and there isn't a single secondary sources which disproves it's content. This is an original research.

(22) "this RfC was made [Talk:Nikola_Tesla/Archive_7#RfC:_Is_Tesla.27s_father_a_Serbian_Orthodox_priest] with the result quite clear against him."

A lie. My suggestion was sustained. You on the other hand has strong objections and you presented zero sources to support you suggestions.

(23) I can't sum all claims about Military frontier, but you presented no sources to support your claim. I think that at least 2 dozen times you had repeated the same claims, yet mo sources. That is disruptive.

(24) The whole discussion about Tesla's birthplace where you showed disruptive behavior by repeating the claims how Military frontier had nothing to do with Croatia at least 10 times. Also you presented 6 cherry picked sources that Tesla was born in Military frontier, while neglecting a bunch of sources like "in Smiljan, a small village in Croatia". Cherry picking sources is disruptive behavior. Asdisis (talk) 17:02, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New editors that show conveniently after I get banned?

First, Jackiechan321 Thanks for the source. Feel free to post sources on my talk page, it seems they did not ban me from editing here. At least not yet. I don't think they will dare to ban me just for speaking here on my talk page with people who come here. Feel free to invite the others. If they are banning discussins on talk pages then we can have discussions elsewhere.

Now I want to answer the question above. An IP guy had appeared after I got banned. I want to state that I'm not him. I do not intend to create sock puppet accounts and comment as an IP editor. I already see a certain user is asserting that I'm him. I'm not and I hope I won't get banned from this talk page because of what he does. It seems that now every editor that starts the questions I was discussing will be accused that he is actually me. I hope they experience what I had experienced. Asdisis (talk) 22:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Banning me or banning the discussion or banning free speech all together?

Michael Cambridge thank you for your support, but I see you are appealing to the wrong person. That editor has said a direct lie that I had "refactored and reorganized other editors comments on the Talk page to appear to support my[caims]", while I was conveniently banned from participating ANI. He also said that I'm pushing Croatia.That is true, but only because the sources had led me there. The real question is upon which sources there is so strong objection. If I push then some people obviously equally object. Why? Upon which sources? Upon which sources the edit from May 10th was introduced? How come some people fiercely defended an edit without any source at all, against the sources I presented? That kind of strong objections without any sources are disruptive. If I posted too much comments by answering, the other side had posted equally much. Who did I answer? So, just because I'm alone in the discussion others are allowed to post more comments and clog the discussion with their unfounded claims and I'm not allowed to objectively analyse their claims? I'm maybe a fool to think that is obvious to objective people. One thing is sure, no one had read the discussions and I was banned only based on the number of my comments. If someone wants to discuss objectively we can do it here. I would be thankful to you Michael Cambridge if you could direct the people who want to discuss objectively to come here. We can't change the article but we can show what the sources say. I hope some day objectivity will win. Asdisis (talk) 12:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources about Military frontier

Since I'm disabled to post source to disprove unfounded claims made by some people, I will post it here. It is free for anyone to use.

Some people are stating unfounded claims that Military frontier was something completely separated from Croatia (Kingdom of Croatia). This is not the case. Military frontier is a separate administrative unit, but in the legislative sense that is still Croatia.

Here's the source: [5]

Quotes from the source:

(1) " The borderland in Croatia was the oldest and most western part of this extensive defense system. "

In Croatia*.

(2) " Of all Croatian lands under Habsburg rule, 65.5 % belonged to the Military Frontier and only 34.5 % to Civil Croatia. "

The source is using the term "Military frontier in Croatia" in multiple places.

So the exact statement would be. Smiljan, Croatian Military frontier, Military Frontier, Kingdom of Croatia, Austrian Empire. To some people everything is ok, but the word Croatia, so they leave out Croatian Military frontier, and Kingdom of Croatia.

Michael Cambridge, maybe this source interest you too. Asdisis (talk) 17:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

If you continue to use this page to request proxy edits while you are blocked you will lose the ability to edit this page. Please concentrate on obtaining your unblock; if you have no interest in unblock then please do not disrupt the project any more than you already have. Tiderolls 17:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain proxy editing or link the rule about proxy editing? If I'm breaking any Wikipedia's rule than I apologize. I just posted a source on my talk page and pinged another user because that may interest him. I don't see how that is disruptive behavior unless the user I had pinged had complained. Am I not allowed to ping other users even with their permission? Asdisis (talk) 19:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To address your first question: WP:EVASION. By now you should be aware that your perception of "disruptive" does not dovetail with Wikipedia convention. You should not depend on your interpretation, it's letting you down. Tiderolls 19:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the discussion, and no one had used my source yet, so I don't see what you mean with proxy editing. I'm sorry, but if you want to ban me because I post sources to my talk page, then so be it. I intend to post sources to my page and open discussions here. If pinging another editor with his permission is against some rule, I'm prepared to stop that. If it isn't then I will keep posting sources and inviting people to come and discuss them here, of course, those who want to participate. I do not bare responsibility for their further actions. I will not ask them to do any actions in my behalf anywhere. If it is against the rule, I won't ping anyone. If I'm not allowed to post sources and comments here on my talk page, what's the point of letting me post here? If I'm not allowed to speak then ban me so that is clearly stated, but I won't stop speaking because I do not live in North Korea. I'm confined here and it seems even that isn't enough to some people. Asdisis (talk) 19:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You will post content and ping users but will not ask said users to do any actions on your behalf. That's disruption. Do it again and I will remove your ability to edit this page. Again, seek unblock if you wish to edit further. If you have no interest in editing, that's fine too. Tiderolls 19:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ping other users with their permission? I'm prepared to stop pinging them even with their permission if it is now allowed according to some rule. I did not say I will "post content and ping users but will not ask said users to do any actions on your behalf". If I'm not allowed to post here, because someone might use the source I post here, then what's the point? I just want to note that so far, no one had used the source I posted here, nor made any edit in my behalf, nor I asked anyone to make any edit in my behalf. Also I would like to ask you to answer me, who reported me and where. I don't see another opened ANI or anything on your talk page. Am I allowed to know that, or some secret reports about me are circling around that I'm not allowed to see? At least I could see the ANI although I could not participate. Now I will get banned even without seeing the report. I doubt you came here on your own. Asdisis (talk) 20:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will not be making deals on pinging and syntax. I'm asking you to do the proper thing. If you have a desire to edit here, gain unblock. If you have no desire to edit then don't seek unblock. Any other use of this page is extraneous. And while "extraneous" is not disruptive in and of itself, it's right next door. Don't be disruptive; seek unblock. Tiderolls 20:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No you misunderstood. I'm not trying to make any deal. If it is allowed I will do it, if it isn't I won't do it. Am I allowed to follow the rules? If you don't explicitly say it is against the rules, I will ping other editors with their permission in a non disruptive way, although me talking about it does not mean I will use that extensively. Just occasionally. Maybe I will seek unblock in the future time, when other objective people come to review it. People who will actually read the discussion, for now that is not possible. I also asked you a question you did not answer. Who and with what arguments had reported me so you came here? If you do not want to answer, just say it, do not leave me hanging to think for myself if you do not want to answer or you just forgot accidentally. Can I know that or secret reports are done according to the rules?

In good faith I made it very simple for you. I can repeat, I intend to post sources on my talk page. If I was to be banned for that, then do it right now, and state it clearly that I got banned for that. Asdisis (talk) 21:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that I've explained the situation adequately. My instructions regarding proxy editing contain no ambiguity that I can see. You are free to call proxy editing by any term you wish, I will still remove your talk page access if you proceed. Tiderolls 21:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you were very clear. You refused to tell me who reported me and where I can see that report. You refused to tell me even in general if I am allowed to ask to see that report and know who brought you here. You refused to tell me if secret reports can be done according to Wikipedia's rules. You refused to answer if pinging other users is against the rules. I offered to abide them. You refused to answer if it is against Wikipedia's rules to post sources here. You are trying to assert that I do not want to get unblocked, which is not true. If I'm disruptive then how can we call your behavior here? You are Wikipedia's admin (or whatever) and look at what you had done. You came here to threat me that I will get even more banned because I post sources on my talk page. I am not doing proxy editing, and go ahead, ban me for posting sources on my talk page. At least we will get over with it. Also, please tell FkpCascais that I do not care much for him calling his friends to come here and threaten me that I will get even more banned. I did not do any proxy editing, I only posted a source on my talk page. If there is something wrong with that, you would have already blocked me. I clearly stated that I'm going to post sources on my talk page, and offered you to block me for that. You had not done that because you are trying to block me according to the proxy editing rule. To some people it isn't enough I'm confined here.

Lastly and the most important.

If some proxy editing was done you wouldn't come here to my talk page but you would warn/block the person who is actually doing the editing on some talk page., so please stop with your disruptive behavior here on my talk page or I will report you. Asdisis (talk) 22:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015

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 • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation 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 you have already appealed to the Unblock Ticket Request System and been declined you may appeal to the Arbitration Committee's Ban Appeals Subcommittee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"I intend to post sources to my page and open discussions here." and "I did not do any proxy editing, I only posted a source on my talk page. If there is something wrong with that, you would have already blocked me. I clearly stated that I'm going to post sources on my talk page, and offered you to block me for that. You had not done that because you are trying to block me according to the proxy editing rule." are incompatible. You can use the Unblock Ticket Request System to request an unblock if you wish to continue posting here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion

Asdisis has done block evasion by using an IP account, this one. He is again editing issues which are related to Serbia-Croatia disputes which seems to be his predilect ones. He already edited prior his block from that same place in this edit. Just see the geolocation of the two, it is exactly the same, no doubts it is Asdinsis. FkpCascais (talk) 16:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the geolocation of the IP which Asdisis used on my talk-page it gave me the same exact place in the road between Livade and Primišlje as the 78.3.75.119 is giving me (78.3.75.119). But now the IP Asdinsis used at my talk page is giving a new geolation near Zagreb, see 89.164.170.144 (89.164.170.144), exactly the same as from another IP accout that has been active yesterday at Nikola Tesla article, the 141.136.243.205 (edits from IP 141.136.243.205. So he evaded block yesterday anyway. FkpCascais (talk) 03:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm under block but I have to answer these false accusations. Firstly the IP guy being accused to be me has a completely different behavior. He had edited an article and I had never edited an article but I was involved in discussions regarding history and politics. The IP guy in involved in football related topic. Secondly, the IP address comes from a completely different region in Croatia and from a completely different ISP. And if I would like to make a puppet accounts I would use a proxy and my IP address would not come from Croatia. This user is raging on Wikipedia and accusing everyone and trying to block everyone that does not agree with him. I will report this user because he is making this accusations on purpose because his admin friends have told him I'm appealing to remove my block so he is trying to sabotage my appeal with this accusations. He had accused numerous people to be me when IP addresses clearly state the different region and different ISP.82.214.103.10 (talk) 07:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are not allowed to edit through IPs when blocked. Doc talk 08:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I have no intention of editing Wikipedia any more, I got banned because I spoke and not because I was disruptive. To whom I was disruptive when I posted on my talk page? If I'm not allowed to speak then I will by example show that, thus I have no interest in creating puppet accounts or posting from ip addresses. If I had that intention I would use a proxy and my IP could not be traced. This accusations that I have puppet accounts are directed to sabotage my appeal. I reported it to the appeal committee. I hope they will see that this user reports anyone who does not agree with him, and that my block was not just. I was not disruptive and this user has admin friends who pushed the block with false accusations. I hope my case will stand as an example and I do not intend to damage my case because then my whole engagement would be recorded as disruptive. My example shows that anyone can be blocked without a single example of disruptive behavior to support the accusations. I wasn't disruptive, and I was banned for speaking. Also comments from my talk page have been erased, and that shows I'm not being allowed to present sources and speak freely. I had watched everything without commenting but this had crossed the line. This user is trying to sabotage my appeal by this false accusations. He had accused 3 people of being me and of those 3 accusations 2 were proven to be false, and the third was blocked just because the IP came from Zagreb. Well, as you can see from this IP I use several computers from different ISP's and not everyone from Zagreb is me. I will sign this comment in an hour or 2 with a different IP just to show that I use 3 ISP providers. So go ahead block every IP editor from Zagreb who does not agree with this user. I'm glad the IP guy got blocked on this user's accusations. I hope everyone sees his rage to Croatian editors that do not agree with his nationalistic agenda. Here I've said a personal accusation the first time in this discussions. I did it just to prove that this is allowed to FkpCascais who had been accusing me that I'm Croatian ever since I joined wikipeia, and not just me, but anyone who does not agree with him. Also I remembered now another of his accusations to other people that they are me. This one is interesting because he withdraw the accusation when he saw the editor does not disagree with him [6]

So the summary of accusations. FkpCascais accused 4 people of being my. In one instance he withdraw his accusation when he realized the user is not disagreeing with him, I provided a link. The accusations towards Michael_Cambridge were used only in talk pages, but no report has been made. Other editors rejected his accusations towards Michael_Cambridge. He accused a person that edited some football article of being me, and that was rejected in the ANI and he accused a person who said he comes from Zagreb of being me because my ip also comes from Zagreb. That user was blocked for 48 hours and I'm glad he had because he will see what I went trough dealing with FkpCascais.

I can use proxy so my IP won't be traced. I used Croatian IP on purpose just to show that will be used as ad-hominem attack. Anyways my comments are so specific that I would be recognized even if I created a puppet account.

82.214.103.10 (talk) 09:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The IP is blocked and it was confirmed it was you, so either you appeal this block on your master account, or otherwise shut-up. You caused mass disruption already and you made a huge number of senior editors loose enormous amount of useless time with your vandalism and POV pushing, so stop making IP edits pretending to be someone else but defending the same POV on Tesla article which is what matters to you. PS: No, you are not fooling no one by making 2 edits on some other articles and then going in disguise to Nikola Tesla. PS2: You shouldn't be even writing here cause you were indef blocked and you even abused your rights to write your own talk-page. PS3: It was not me who got you blocked, but your own behavior. You seem to be ignoring that. Tesla is not Croatian, get over it, live a life for God sake. You are the worst obsessive case I have ever seen in my decade long experience with Wikipedia. FkpCascais (talk) 13:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I answered you on Dianna's talk page, but she had deleted it. I had appealed, but I came here to defend myself from your false accusations. I'm not interested in creating puppet accounts. I had not ever created a puppet account and I was being accused for that misdeed ever since I joined wikipedia. I was accused that I'm a puppet of someone else in the beginning and now I'm accused I have other puppet accounts. The editors that you accused have completely different pattern. One editor was being accused only because you thought he is disagreeing with you. That shoes you will accuse everyone that disagrees with you. He had American IP and you accused him that he comes from Croatia. The other user edited a completely different page, a football related page. For Michael even the editors on the talk page said he isn't a puppet, and lastly the IP guy on Tesla talk page deserved it. He had roughly the same location of IP address and you though he disagreed with you. This yours conduct is recorded and some day someone will report you. I'm documenting it all on this talk page so when the report comes, your past conduct is recorded on a single place to the upcoming ANI. The fact that I got banned does not mean your behavior was any different than supposed mine. Yes, I know I'm under block so please stop accusing people of being me and stop contacting me here on my talk page. You know I will answer as I always did. And I know I'm under block but I'm not editing any article or participating any discussions. I'm just editing my talk page, since I was not given a reason why I was blocked. Not by the initial ban, and not in 2 instances of appeal. I mean, go ahead and remove my comments, they are anyways recorded in history tab. Also stop with the lies. I said myself Tesla is Serbian several times, but you keep asserting I'm denying it. That is because of your subjectivity. You are a nationalistic editor and you see in everyone your enemies that have to be blocked. You do not even know my stand after a full year. That much shows how subjective you are, you only see the enemy in me. Well your claim that Tesla is a liar perfectly describes how far you will go with your nationalistic rant. 8.29.210.36 (talk) 22:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Asdisis case

User Asdisis was banned because he spoke too much. He wasn't able to participate the ANI, where several experienced users stated untrue accusation without a single example to sustain them. Their accusations were taken for granted because of their status as an experienced editors. User Asdisis was left confined to edit his own talk page but soon after he was banned once again. This time there were no unture and unfounded accusations stated. This time even the reason for the ban was not stated. User Asdisis went on appeal to ask for a reason that got him banned from editing his talk page. He furthermore asked to see the example of the supposed dispruptive behavior that got him banned in the first place. He was denied both, thus he was denied in his right to appeal, much like he was denied to participate the initial ANI. 89.164.161.161 (talk) 18:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again evading block

this time at Talk:Serbs of Croatia. FkpCascais (talk) 11:53, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You need to stop socking if you truly want change

I'm leaving this reply per my comment here [7] as it seems clear you are the IP. Asdisis I'm assuming you're simply a POV pusher and not a troll or engaging in some dumb false flag operation. In other words, you genuinely want to get your POV represented. While perhaps it's not entirely fair to leave this message since you can't reply without socking, since you're still hanging around like a bad smell I'm going to make one final attempt to get through to you.

I don't I guess you still don't understand but your actions here and on the various talk pages are actually incredibly damaging to your cause. People are very reluctant to trust any source, opinions or proposals coming from a persistent sock. Likewise whatever problems FkpCascais and others are allegedly causing are going to continue to largely fly under the radar as long as you are involved. Despite the DOLT sentiments, it's easy to see the obvious problem (i.e. you) and ignore any other possible problems that may exist. (Note I'm not saying they do exist, simply if they do exist they're probably not going to get much attention.)

To give an example, I don't give a flying flip about the actual dispute. I'm sure you recognise that I have zero real previous involvement. I also have zero Serbian/Croatian/Hungarian/Austrian/whatever heritage I'm aware of. Yet I'm tempted to !vote against you in that RfC without looking at the evidence simply because of your ridiculous behaviour. My gut geeling is whatever you're pushing must be wrong because of how you've behaved. I won't, and I think most editors do resist such temptations, yet it's impossible to be sure any !vote and view isn't at least partially influenced by the behaviour they're seeing from you since that's simply how human psychology works.

Perhaps even more likely, those who may otherwise favour your view or who are neutral and uninvolved are very reluctant to get involved when they see your silliness going on, or may feel they can't because they're now incredibly biased against the proposal simply because of your behaviour. (To some extent this applies to me although in reality, I don't think I'd ever get significantly involved because I recognised even before I saw you that Serbian/Croatian disputes tend to be a hell-hole I have no desire to get involved in. And socks like you are only one aspect which make them such a hell-hole.)

You've said that this has been going on for 10 years. It's going to stay the same of 100 years if you keep it up. There's a fair chance that things are never going to end the way you want them do simply because of the sources and our policies and guidelines. But there's an even greater chance if you keep this up.

If you want there to be any chance of a resolution remotely in your favour, you need to stop socking and stay away from all these discussions and leave it to editors in good standing. In the unlikely event you (the IP) aren't Asdisis and are in good standing, you still need to stay away until and unless you're willing to use your main account for such discussions. You said you've incredibly proud of finding that source, but what would you be more proud of. Finding a source that is never going to be used because of your socking, or that the article is actually changed to at least partially represent your POV because you stayed away and let others deal with the article?

I'd note that you've already alienated another editor, as they themselves have said [8]. It was fairly obvious that was what happened, I have no idea why you believed it had anything to do with the other editors [9]. I guess you still don't understand how much your behaviour is despised here.

Nil Einne (talk) 11:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]