User talk:Reaubilya

October 2013

Hello, I'm Yopie. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions because it appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Yopie (talk) 15:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, your allegations are baseless. You reverted entire posts (like this on Viceroy Borić) based on a single objection. Please try to be more cooperative, "brotherhood" meant House of Berislavić, which is corrected now. Reaubilya (talk) 15:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out to the self-referencing in the List_of_current_pretenders#European. Changed that now to a third-party source. That was more cooperative. Reaubilya (talk) 15:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Yopie (talk) 15:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really sorry if you feel that way. I have no intention to run wars. I just added another independent reference to my List_of_royal_houses#Europe addition. But please note that many entries in that article have no references whatsoever, just look at Poland for instance. Why are you insisting on so many references in this case? Reaubilya (talk) 18:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Yopie (talk) 16:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Again, this is not promotional material of any sort. I'm a Bosnian and that claim to the Bosnian throne exists since 2010 and has been covered here in the media. It should have been listed a long time ago in Wikipedia as well. Just trying to keep Wiki up to date, that's all. Reaubilya (talk) 18:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. In a 2007 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user editing Balkans-related articles in a disruptive way. If you engage in further inappropriate behaviour in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article/topic ban. Thank you.

This whole "Bosnia is now/still a kingdom" junk just doesn't fly. Please stop adding fringe theories to encyclopedia articles. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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.

Again, please concentrate on adding properly sourced content to the encyclopedia, rather than promoting arbitrary nonsense. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:30, 9 October 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

This is a simple case of a Croatian chauvinist with an agenda, who is misusing his blocking privileges at that. Everyone can see that this is not an article but an expanded stub, and there is no promotional material because there is no article to begin with. In case he meant pretension to the Bosnian throne, oh well. They are many around the world, and the one listed in here is legit and referenced in a usual manner from Top 3 news sources in Bosnia according to Alexa. Nobody should really care if the Croatian editor Joy has a personal problem with a Bosnian claimant or not. In addition, his manners are extremely uncivil as he used insulting language and didn't discuss his objections in Talk. Please unblock. Thank you. Reaubilya (talk) 18:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No valid reason given to unblock. Attacking the blocking admin is not persuasive. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:51, 9 October 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

He can insult but cannot be insulted? OK, let's say that's a policy (although you didn't quote such policy.) But back to the point: the block was placed for allegedly Disruptive editing. As there was no article to begin with (and so nothing to edit), all that was done was expanding a stub with a little tag asking us if we would please expand this stub... So helping Wikipedia is now seen as abusive? Reaubilya (talk) 20:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

That's hardly a refutation of your disruptive editing. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:15, 9 October 2013 (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.

They ganged-up on you

Hey nice job with expanding the stub and digging around resources. I also read (unlike your attackers) the Talk page. Well done! And don't worry too much about the attacks, as you've just been ganged-up on by a few Catholic editors. They do it all the time to Bosnian editors. It happened to me on Bosnian pyramid hoax article, where they lost the vote by 6:1 and totally ignored it and went on calling it a hypothesis instead of a hoax (what scientists call it.) They think they own Wikipedia (or at least) Bosnia or something. Civilizing us, lol. Especially when it comes to all the medieval period topics. They love to equate religion with territorial right. Hope you won't get discouraged by this. Nice find all in all, it was about time Bosnia got its own claimant to the throne. I verified your sources, fabulous! So I reversed your hard work back to your version. Congrats again and welcome to Wikipedia. Ideabeach (talk) 07:39, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thanks I can see you are right! I didn't know this is how it works on Wikipedia. I thought it is free for everyone as they say, but they attack you like sharks when you try to add something from the news which they don't like. Like there is a formula to compute which news is worth and which isn't. I try my best to make a really nice expanded stub as they call it, and included all fresh information also about Bosnian prince who claims the throne. I find it exciting to have our own royal family and journalists think that also. But these Croatian savages (and their Catholic helpers with names like Anthony, Josh and so on) group together to make it impossible to even post here what has been published in the news that are in Top 3 according to Alexa 500 list for Bosnia. What can you do. They do it on Google too, if you notice Google Croatia "handles" Google Bosnia, as if Bosnia doesn't exist. They think we are their colony or something. Croatia was on Hitler's side in the WW II. Reaubilya (talk) 13:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Renamed the page to House of Omerbašić Berislavić Nemanjić

Just renamed the page to House of Omerbašić Berislavić Nemanjić. It was about time. Again, good job! Hopefully you are going to continue, and turn this stub into a hot article. Ideabeach (talk) 07:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again man, but they again cancelled it. There is no point. They are bastards. Bosnian news doesn't exist for them. Bosnian royalty also. Nothing Bosnian is worth to them. They just haters. I read some of the Bosnian pyramid stuff you mention on the Talk page, and how they lied to you when they lost vote 5:1. I am shocked. I give up from Wikishitia for sure. Good look with fighting them man, especially Catholics they are nasty I have personal negative experience with them from war (camp prisoner). you have nerves I must congratulate you. Im so exited now I'm feeling like exploding and cant think and write normaly at this moment. But you should be careful they are dangerous I know them very well ! Reaubilya (talk) 13:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]