User talk:Posp68

Welcome!

Hello, Posp68, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Xx236 (talk) 10:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious claims at Polish-Czechoslovak War

Dear Posp68. I suggest you discuss any potential additions to the article on its talk page, particularly the one-sided claims you are making.--Darwinek (talk) 17:55, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Expulsion of Germans from Czechoslovakia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.. You need to use the talk page and stop making outrages claims based on outdated sources.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--Ymblanter (talk) 18:12, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31h for personal attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. User:Ymblanter (talk) 21:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For this--Ymblanter (talk) 20:07, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editing while logged out

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. --Ermenrich (talk) 18:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

Please refrain from using talk pages for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use 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.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary Sanctions Enforcement Notice

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement concerning you.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:57, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Posp68. If you continue to edit Wikipedia without responding to the complaint, admins may decide to go ahead with a topic ban of your account. EdJohnston (talk) 00:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are topic banned indefinitely from the subjects of Eastern Europe and the Balkans, broadly construed.

You have been sanctioned for the reasons put forth in the following arbitration enforcement request: [1]

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020 1

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for arbitration enforcement, has broken the topic ban. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. User:Ymblanter (talk) 14:24, 19 June 2020 (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).

Posp68 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Wonder why I've been banned --Posp68 (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2020 (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.

Pops68, have you read the messages that have been left for you? For example, the complaint at WP:AE can be seen at this link. Let me know if you have any questions about the statements there. EdJohnston (talk) 18:39, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston, The conclusions of the Potsdam Conference were confirmed by its signatory states in 1996. The US government, said: The removal of Germans from Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary were soundly based in international law. The conclusions of Potsdam are historical fact and the United States is confident that no country wishes to call them into question.

In the Czech–German Declaration of August 1997, the German government took full responsibility for the crimes of the Nazi regime and their consequences (the Allied expulsion). "The German side is conscious of the fact that the National Socialist policy of violence towards the Czech people helped to prepare the ground for post-war flight, forcible expulsion and forced resettlement." The references can be found in the article. Is this the basis for blocking?

You are topic-banned from the subjects of Eastern Europe and the Balkans, broadly construed. Strike out or remove your comments above, which are about Eastern Europe, or find your access to this talk page revoked and/or your block extended. --Yamla (talk) 18:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla, I do not understand what you mean. Emmerich used the word ethnic cleansing and I objected to it because the expulsion was an international agreement. Maybe EdJohnston could answer me.--Posp68 (talk) 19:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)--Posp68 (talk) 19:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pops68, you are still making content arguments to administrators at a time when you under a topic ban. The time for content arguments is over. Maybe you can convince us that your edits were due to a temporarily period of bad judgment. You could agree not to repeat the problems that were reported at WP:AE. On your present course, you wouldn't be very credible, because you seem completely unaware of what you did wrong. EdJohnston (talk) 19:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston, I apologize, but I do not know what I have written that is wrong and led to blocking.--Posp68 (talk) 19:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You were warned. I have now extended the block indefinitely and revoked your talk page access. You may use WP:UTRS to indicate you plan to abide by your topic ban, in which case your talk page access may be reinstated so you can request your block be lifted. --Yamla (talk) 19:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.