User talk:Human Rights Believer

PART ONE

Leave messages here. Positive things only please!

ANything bad, you know where to take it!! :)))

Blanking the talk-page

Could you please restore the contents of this page since they reflect your history as well as the ones you debate with. A common way to deal with an long talk page is to put the old parts on an archive page. As it stands now, I will have to dig in the history to see what discussions you have been involved in, and that is really no fun at all instead of doing a quick look or search. *sad* -- Dront (talk) 11:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh poor lad. Human Rights Believer (talk) 11:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for belittling me because I point out common practice and common sense. Now, have a good day Sir. -- Dront (talk) 11:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

______________________________

PART TWO

Next messages please?

November 2009

Please do not use talk pages such as Zimbabwe for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. Greenman (talk) 14:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Andrew Castle, you will be blocked from editing. NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 14:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 12 hours

You have been blocked for 12 hours for violating a topic ban. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why, what's the problem with users who stand up for majority rule of law and democracy and free will??? Why is this place run by dictator apologists? Human Rights Believer (talk) 12:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now extended to 24 hours because you personally attacked me. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are indefinitely topic banned per WP:ARBMAC from all Balkans-related articles. Therefore you should not edit any article that falls under this remit. I was minded to indef you, but tsbdy already blocked you before I had a chance to. Any further violation of the topic ban and you will be indeffed. Mjroots (talk) 12:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK why is evlekis and tadija allowed to edit there when they are sockpuppets for one and they are clearly pro-Serb for another?? Why don't they get topic banned? What about the other Serbo-nationalist FpkCarscis??? Don't they plaster the articles with pro-Serb bias?? I appeal against this ban and I never attacked anyone. Human Rights Believer (talk) 12:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First appeal the ban, then if it is repealed you get to edit Balkans articles. You don't violate the ban and then appeal it. Furthermore, a personal attack against the blocking admin will only lengthen the block. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Same reverts. Same subjects. Same bias. You're not the law. Don't edit here

I was just going to say, if you have evidence of sockpuppetry, WP:SPI is that way. However, making an accusation in bad faith will be seen as disruptive editing and dealt with accordingly. None of the editors you mention are topic banned from Balkans articles, and they are free to edit them. Mjroots (talk) 12:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of threads from ANI

Do not remove an ANI thread raised against yourself or any other editor. As you have seen, such tactics do not work, and can only count against you. Mjroots (talk) 12:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite block

I have reviewed your contributions thus far and all I can see so far is a history of disruption. While I can understand being new to Wikipedia, you have now been made aware that the way you are editing needs modification. As you have seen fit to ignore friendly advise (often you have been abusive [1] [2] [3]) I have now indefinitely blocked you.

If you wish to contest this decision, please use the {{block}} template. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some friendly directions

For when you do become unblocked, I wanted to give you some helpful advice. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? They've blocked me idefinitanely haven't they. So-called Tadija is not "topic banned" and is allowed to edit and I am not. Even if I am allowed to edit I still can't do Balkan subjects where my knowledge is extremely strong as well as my hand in reliable sources. This whole thing sucks. Human Rights Believer (talk) 14:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite does not mean infinite: you can appeal blocks using {{unblock}}. If you demonstrate a willingness to work collaboratively, follow consensus and be productive in non-Balkans areas, you should be able to gain people's trust and get the topic ban lifted in time. Olaf Davis (talk) 14:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

All right, I'll reduce this to a 12 hour block (restarting now). But you step out of line again, or if I see disruption, I'm indefinitely blocking you. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request handled by: Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

(edit conflict)I'll also add that topic bans need not be indefinite, either. Read the topics above and familiarize yourself with our policies and guidelines, particularly the NPOV policy. If you can learn to work with your fellow editors, you could probably return to editing those articles. If, on the other hand, you intend to continue to push a one-sided view of those topics, your block and topic ban are unlikely to be lifted. —DoRD (?) (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you of no more 1-sided views. More talk/less article interfering, that's a sure promise. Human Rights Believer (talk) 14:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou so much Tabushiddayu! You're the best admin. No more personal insults and good edits only from now. Human Rights Believer (talk) 14:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And no violation of topic bans, at least until someone overturns it. I'll be holding you to your word. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you are topic banned from Balkans articles. Please be careful with your edits to Kosovo. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have got to be kidding. I warned you that you would be blocked from editing, HRB if you violated the ban. I'm now going to block you. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 03:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, looks like you are blocked. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 03:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 48 hours

I have blocked you for 48 hours for this edit, which was a violation of your topic ban. Also, in this edit to the same article's talk page you appear to have falsified another editor's comment, which is completely unacceptable. If you want to steer clear of another indefinite block you'd better start obeying your ban. Olaf Davis (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow that was fast. never expected that. I thought the ban was lifted completely. I was using talk pages more, still not to worry, I know what to do now when it ends. Thankyou. Human Rights Believer (talk) 17:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Tbsdy lifted the block but the ban remains. Thanks for taking it in good humour, though: that's exactly the right attitude to take and will speak in your favour when the ban gets reviewed in future. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What part of "no violation of topic bans" didn't you understand? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 03:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Butcher of the Balkans

Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Tadija (talk) 14:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you in such a great mood! :) P.S. This is Balkan-related article! :) --Tadija (talk) 14:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for one week

Your creation of Butcher of the Balkans was a violation of your topic ban from "all Balkans-related articles, broadly construed". Since you show no signs of stopping these ban violations I have blocked you for a week this time. If you violate your ban again on the block's expiry, I will indefinitely block you. I hope this is clear. Olaf Davis (talk) 14:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you need help in deciding whether a given article falls within the scope of your ban, I suggest asking me or another admin first. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never violated anything. I created a page then you wiped it. I never touched Kosova or Greater Serbia so you can say that anything is Balkan-topic. I edit X-Factor and you can say - "hey, they've got that in Albania and Kosova - so that's Balkan related - let's block Human Rights Believer again". Nor right. It is not an attack to refer to Milosevic and Butcher of the Balkans for three reasons. 1 - he was, he killed millions of non-Serbs and moderate Serbs in about 10 wars all of which he lost. 2 - The relaible sources denoted from democractic principles and free press call him that and 3 - see Saddam Hussein and Butcher of Baghdad. I disagree with changing that because he too was another Milosevic when he manslaughtered millions of Kurds and Shites in gas attacks and genocide. His article is OK so Milosevic should be the same. I want to type Butcher of the Balkans and it should take me to Milosevic. It can hardly go to peaceful men like Blair, Clinton, Bush or Hashim Thaci can it? Please, stop being childish and raise this block. I never attcked Tadija, he is off his trolley and I don't know what he is talking about. I resist the ban. Human Rights Believer (talk) 15:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been observing from a distance for some time now. Please Human Rights Believer, take a deep breath and try to observe what has happened. You received a block from Balkan related topics. One of the reasons you got into trouble in the first place were edits to pages just like Slobodan Milošević. Not on X-Factor being aired in the Balkans. So it can hardly be surprising that Milosevic is associated with the Balkans, much more so than a TV-show. No matter how bad of a man Milosevic was, self-righteously going against the administrators, fellow editors and the rules is not the way to producing a good Wikipedia. -- Dront (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I'll reply to your points in order. First, a technicality for the record: I didn't wipe the page, JoJan did; you can see that here. Secondly, X-factor is not a good analogy. The page you created has the word "Balkans" in the title; if that's not "Balkans-related" then I don't know what is. Thirdly, I actually agree with you that the redirect is reasonable. I may recreate it myself, after proposing that his article make some mention of the name citing reliable sources so that it doesn't look like we're making unsourced accusations. However, the question of whether the redirect is reasonable is a separate one from your ban: you are not allowed to edit Balkans-related articles, no matter how good the edits are. You can propose edits on talk pages but not make them yourself. Finally, I haven't seen Tadija accusing you of attacks so I can't comment on that - feel free to link to it if he has. I'd suggest that "he is off his trolley" is not the best way of expressing your disagreement with him though, especially if you don't want people to accuse you of attacks. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for being understanding. In English, when we say "off your trolley", it's the sort of thing you can say to your best mate. There are more insulting terms that that. Here is the link in which Tadija accused me of a personal attack[4]. I am not against him in any way but he is clearly a Serb biased editor. When was the last time he slagged off the Serbs for their dispicable war crimes against humanity in te 1990's? Why is he so eagre to defend Milosevic? I thought the Serb nation got rid of him themselves but there are still a few hardline supporters of his (and Greater Serbia) like himself and Evlekis who don't get it - "it's over - the west stopped you - welcome to the real world - you don't carry on killing innocent people for fun, it's not permitted in our democratic society". Tadija is always reverting edits against Serbs and making new ones defending them for their sickening crimes. Anyhow I know my expectations now, I can edit on TALK pages only for Balkan matters and not articles. I am good at achieving concensuses because it is what I believe in - I am here to represent good will and democracy and most of all, human rights. I thought creating pages and redirecting them didn't count. You're a good user yourself Olaf, so help me out of this scrape. Together we'll return the Bucther of the Balkans redirect and plaster it with so many reliable sources that Tadija and his sockpuppet Evlekis won't know what Planet they're on. What say? Human Rights Believer (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean about 'off your trolley' - it was just a friendly warning since communicating via text only, especially with people who aren't native English speakers, can sometimes cause nuances like that to be lost and people to get offended by things intended in a friendly way. I see now what you mean about the 'personal attack' warning in the speedy deletion warning template. As I said above I personally feel the redirect is appropriate, but I can see why others might view it as an attack on Milosevic, especially unsourced as it was. I haven't seen any of Tadija's edits elsewhere so I have no comment to make on his bias or otherwise. I'd advice against throwing accusations of sockpuppetry around lightly, though. If you have evidence that it's the case then a SPI is the way to go; making the accusation without evidence is only going to turn other users against you.

Regarding the redirect: I'm probably going to be away from editing for at least the weekend and maybe the better part of next week, but I'll bring the issue up when I get the time. Hopefully we'll be able to achieve a consensus so that no-one is left wondering what planet they're on; if not, we'll take it from there. Olaf Davis (talk) 16:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can't do SPI because I am blocked and the same admin blocked me indeffo again. If you lift the ban, I'll know not to do Balkan articles, not even direct new pages there. I'll use Talk only. I know Tadija and Evlekis are the same user, first you have the same nationalistic edits and then you get the same ganging up. Take this pathetic unconstructive removal by Evlekis [5] then you get this piece of vandalizm by a so-called "other user" calling himself "Tadija" [6](a clear example of one user using 2 accounts). Can you see your way to blocking them indeffo then lifting the ban on me, you'll see then there are no more complaints about me, not even on Balkan articles which I promise still not to touch. Ta. Human Rights Believer (talk) 17:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You just don't get it. You aren't allowed to edit any aspect of Balkans related articles, not even talk pages. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 22:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extended block

I'm afraid that you were warned very, very clearly that you are not to edit any article that is related to the Balkans. When you created that Butcher of the Balkans article, you knew exactly what you were doing. So I'm sorry, but I just don't believe you any more. I have blocked you indefinitely - you know the procedure to contest the block, but I'm recommending that no admin change this decision.

Put simply: you had your chances, you blew it. Through your own actions you are now no longer able to contribute to Wikipedia. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 16:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you excuse yourself with the community so that you may be considered to be unblocked soon. I also suggest that when you excuse yourself you blame NOBODY (AND I MEAN NOBODY BUT YOURSELF). You really blew your chances lately, but everyone has secondary chances. Not all of your experience in Wikipedia has been a disruptive one and I challenge all to prove the contrary. I think Human Rights Believer should be unblocked after he presents excuses. I hope to see him around soon with good contributions to the English Wikipedia project. If he is disruptive again (btw when does his Balkan topics ban expire and has the user been notified about it?) then block should include not using his talk page. sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 21:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a joke? FkpCascais (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The topic ban was indefinite, and the user has been made aware of it multiple times. If HRB gets tired of making socks and having them swiftly blocked, the standard offer is of course open to him. If he wants to take it up, fine; if not, I don't forsee any 'excuses' doing him much good. Your choice, HRB. Olaf Davis (talk) 10:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You gotta give a man points for trying. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 10:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Jason Taylor (guitarist)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Jason Taylor (guitarist). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Taylor (guitarist). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]