Overdtop

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

• Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
• Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
• Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
• No edit warring or sock puppetry.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
• Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome!Template:Z129

Cut/paste move of KK Bosna

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give KK Bosna a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into KK Bosna Royal. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen. Thank you. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

November 2014

Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Warning for unsourced/insufficiently sourced, undiscussed and unexplained major, and seemingly POV, edits on multiple articles relating to Bosnia and Herzegovina. A single article on a website of dubious reliability isn't enough to support a claim that BiH is an "autocracy" and "international protectorate", just to mention a couple of the claims made in the edits. So discuss it on the talk pages of the articles, and get support from other editors, BEFORE making such edits again. Thomas.W ^talk 18:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks but you are mistaken. I made rather small edits mostly in the lead or infobox. Besides the reference is of repute, the journal has its Wiki article so you can read it: Peace Magazine, and the book is published by Elsevier also of repute. Feel free to offer your references & discuss, but DON'T delete my edits carelessly. Overdtop (talk) 20:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced content. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Warning for repeated addition of WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and insufficiently sourced material on multiple articles. Thomas.W ^talk 20:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Citing 2 very reputable sources (journal; book) can't be POV. Stating Wikipedia definitions can't be SYNTH. Cease threatening or I'll report you for editor abuse and threats and the community can decide whether my contribution was useful or horrific as you're portraying it. Overdtop (talk) 20:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

See WP:BRD: You were Bold, but were Reverted, so now Discuss it. And by all means feel free to report me, but look ut for the boomerang. Thomas.W ^talk 20:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure, here's all the discussion that's needed: (1) your POV claim is denied by references' highest reputation you can think of, (2) as for your SYNTH claim: all I did was state in terms of Wikipedia definitions what's already been settled in relevant Wikipedia's articles. Overdtop (talk) 20:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not Wikipedia's definition but Wiktionary's, which doesn't matter though, since user-contributed websites, including both Wikipedia and Wiktionary, can't be used as references (see WP:SPS). So it's unsourced. Thomas.W ^talk 20:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, no. Only reputable sources were used years ago when settling the above-linked contents. You're refusing to discuss that contents though you asked for a discussion. Now, please return my edits to the state they were in before you decided to jump the gun. Or you think we must re-discuss already settled issues in each article's Talk over and over again? That's funny. Overdtop (talk) 20:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what sources were allegedly used for creating an article, other Wikipedia articles can not be used as references. Period. And if you disagree with how things work here, try changing the rules. Thomas.W ^talk 21:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean, allegedly used? But anyway: no problem, as sign of good will I can stack up dozens of those very reputable sources from that settled article that call the regime a protectorate etc., throughout Wikipedia each time I state the type of government. Would that satisfy you? Because we're not re-discussing what's already been settled elsewhere, not because I don't want it but because the supporting reputable sources are overwhelmingly many. Overdtop (talk) 21:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you start by reading Drmies' comment on Talk:Bosnia and Herzegovina. Thomas.W ^talk 21:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notice

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.

Template:Z33 Thomas.W ^talk 21:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Macedonia? I thought we were discussing Bosnia and Herzegovina being a protectorate, as many highly reputable sources state ad verbatim. By the way, thanks for the pointer to a discussion at the Bosnia and Herzegovina Talk page. Feel free to contribute. Overdtop (talk) 21:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

If you had bothered to read the decision on that page you would have found this: "The disputes presented in this case, while focusing specifically on issues related to Macedonia, are part of a broader set of conflicts prevalent over the entire range of articles concerning the Balkans; see, for example, the Dalmatia caseand the Kosovo case. Many of these conflicts are grounded in matters external to Wikipedia, including long-standing historical, national, and ethnic disputes in the region. The area of conflict in this case shall therefore be considered to be the entire set of Balkan-related articles, broadly interpreted.". So it applies to all articles relating to the Balkans, broadly construed. Thomas.W ^talk 21:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The "long-standing historical, national, and ethnic disputes" reasoning reads like an exciting bedtime conspiracy theory. There is a reason why separate countries exist, it's called sovereignty. Lumping together various nations based on a conspiracy theory denies the peoples of those nations their rights to freedom. So drop the scare tactics and start discussing Bosnia and Herzegovina being a protectorate as stated by numerous reliable scientific sources, and why in your opinion it would be against Wikipedia rules to state a fact like that. Thanks. Overdtop (talk) 22:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

"Scare tactics"? Don't be silly, you got the notice because the rules say that editors active in areas where discretionary sanctions apply should be notified about it. So save your conspiracy theories and arguments for the talk pages of the articles you want to change. Thomas.W ^talk 22:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

You started first, by quoting some uneducated guess in a Macedonia-related topic which has made someone reach an utterly inhumane conclusion that entire peoples need to be herder rather than observed with dignity. In that genocidal and therefore irrelevant example you cited, a well-known and vehemently opposed conspiracy theory was used, that's been around for ages. It goes something like this: "they are all wild savages in this region we will arbitrarily call the Balkans, so let's circle them with barbwire, and watch the fun slaughter". That is so ridiculous, in addition to being inhumane. For example, the use of the "Balkans" - did they mean Greece too? How about Bulgaria then? Oh well... As I already told you, stop the fear mongering with your rubbish arguments, and start discussing why in your opinion stating the regime type correctly for a country would violate Wikipedia rules. You can discuss it here as per your original suggestion, or at Bosnia and Herzegovina Talk as per your second suggestion. Same to me: I got 1000s of reliable sources, you got 0. Overdtop (talk) 22:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

??? I intend to go to bed now, and judging by your incoherent post above so should you. Thomas.W ^talk 22:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Why the ad hominem attack? I certainly didn't insult you, did I? Your refusal to discuss in Talk pages can only mean you admit you have no case. Overdtop (talk) 22:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)