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 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! Dougweller ( talk) 17:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dougweller ( talk) 17:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Dougweller (
talk) 07:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)Rovasscript ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
User Dougweller acknowledged that blocking my account was based on a mistake (see his last message in this page), I never removed any AfD template. I was also abused multiple accounts, but I did not do so. Moreover, this accusation was not proved or supported by any fact. Rovasscript (talk) 12:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
As per the SPI investigation, you were blocked for using multiple accounts - either WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT - and NOT for removing the AFD tag. The good news is that your mere 3 day block will expire shortly. If you have colleagues editing the same page(s) be warned that such a block will likely recur. If you have evaded a block in order to continue editing, you will be blocked indefinitely. ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
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.
I am prepared to work with you to get your material into Wikipedia. However, this will only be possible if you are prepared to understand and appreciate the peculiar issues and policies that are necessary for a project where literally everyone can contribute, anonymously.
I understand that there is Hungarian literature about the Rovas that is difficult to appreciate for non-Hungarian speakers. But you cannot just upload pages from your book to Wikimedia commons simply on the basis that your book is "respected" in Hungary. That's not how it works at all. You need to follow the tedious path of WP:RS and WP:DUE. Especially if it is a topic on which you have yourself published, you need to understand that people are skeptical. Understand that we get many, many self-published authors that try to push their material on Wikipedia, and that necessarily, Wikipedia needs to build a defense against this. Occasionally, valid material is filtered out by these defenses, but it is better to set high standards for inclusion and put the burden on the people who want to include it than accept the 1% valid material on good faith along with 99% substandard material. You may want to read WP:FRINGE for a longer account of the issues involved. Once you understand how Wikipedia works, you will also be able to submit your material in an acceptable format. -- dab (𒁳) 07:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
There is no evidence that a "Carpathian Basin" script existed. And kindly cease to try to inject your term "Rovas" into the English language. This is not the term we used in English for the Old Hungarian script. This has been explained to you many times, Gábor. It is remarkable that you have so little respect for the English language, and that your personal vendetta against me for calling your 8-bit encodings "naïve" some years back, has continued to delay the encoding of Old Hungarian, and spurs you on to belittle the remarkable achievement of the Hungarians by chasing wild geese like "Carpathian Basin" and "Khazarian" scripts. You and I communicated in a friendly fashion as far back as 1998. But what you have been doing since before the Dublin meeting of WG2 (after you broke the agreement made in Budapest) has been just one act of bad faith after another. It is regrettable. But I guarantee to you, I shall not support the encoding of fictions, nor the uploading of fictions into the English Wikipedia. -- Evertype· ✆ 08:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
This is your last warning; the next time you remove Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, as you did at Rovas Atlas, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You blanked the page and removed the AfD notice despite the clear statement that this must not be done during an AfD. Dougweller ( talk) 10:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I suggest you to rewrite your deleted articles presenting their content as a minority opinion. Hopefully they won't be deleted than. Jó szerkesztést! Föld-lét ( talk) 08:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you; however, I am disappointed due to this present campaign against the Rovas scripts. I was working contiguously for one week, I tried to be as accurate as possible. I think several WP articles are not so precise, and the result: these articles were deleted. During the so-called discussion, my works were qualified "pseudo-scientific" and I also got many offensive and hurtful attributes from people (e.g. "crank author"), who are definitely not familiar with the Rovas scripts and generally they do not have any real concept about this topic. Finally, they realized that my statements are based on real references. The best what they said: "This individual artefact may scrape the notability criteria". This is far from the due process. - Rovasscript ( talk) 08:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Its scientific lobby unfortunately. I was a bit shocked, when I first saw this here, but I think the main misunderstanding is not among editors voting for deletion (who as far as I am concerned are at least to say unfamiliar with Wikipedias rules concerning content) but with those scientists who try to delegitimize scientific hypothesis (or in some cases -by all means- facts) not by presenting scientific evidence, but by character attacks on the researcher. Föld-lét ( talk) 09:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
You have right. The international view about the Rovas scripts accurately shows the state of the Hungarian paleography in the middle of the 20th century. In the last decades, many new archaeological finds and valuable scientific theories were created by officially acknowledged scholars. However, these are unknown by non-Hungarian people. I collected these results - and in some cases a little bit improved after consulting some linguists. The result: I cannot cite this book here. But that is OK. I seriously think if I had used this week for making a journal article, it could have been much more efficient. I am interested in your opinion, however, I do not use the WP regularly as logged in user, especially after this week. If you want, we can communicate in email as well. My address: hosszu@eet.bme.hu - Rovasscript ( talk) 09:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Calling other project volunteers "vandals" because they disagree with you on an editorial issue is not acceptable and constitutes a personal attack. What's more, you're engaging in an edit war; this is also not acceptable. When multiple editors disagree with you about something you're attempting to insert in an article, you have no choice but to use the talk page to attempt to gain consensus for your desired changes. -- jpgordon ::==( o ) 05:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 16:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
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 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! Dougweller ( talk) 17:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dougweller ( talk) 17:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Dougweller (
talk) 07:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)Rovasscript ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
User Dougweller acknowledged that blocking my account was based on a mistake (see his last message in this page), I never removed any AfD template. I was also abused multiple accounts, but I did not do so. Moreover, this accusation was not proved or supported by any fact. Rovasscript (talk) 12:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
As per the SPI investigation, you were blocked for using multiple accounts - either WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT - and NOT for removing the AFD tag. The good news is that your mere 3 day block will expire shortly. If you have colleagues editing the same page(s) be warned that such a block will likely recur. If you have evaded a block in order to continue editing, you will be blocked indefinitely. ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
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.
I am prepared to work with you to get your material into Wikipedia. However, this will only be possible if you are prepared to understand and appreciate the peculiar issues and policies that are necessary for a project where literally everyone can contribute, anonymously.
I understand that there is Hungarian literature about the Rovas that is difficult to appreciate for non-Hungarian speakers. But you cannot just upload pages from your book to Wikimedia commons simply on the basis that your book is "respected" in Hungary. That's not how it works at all. You need to follow the tedious path of WP:RS and WP:DUE. Especially if it is a topic on which you have yourself published, you need to understand that people are skeptical. Understand that we get many, many self-published authors that try to push their material on Wikipedia, and that necessarily, Wikipedia needs to build a defense against this. Occasionally, valid material is filtered out by these defenses, but it is better to set high standards for inclusion and put the burden on the people who want to include it than accept the 1% valid material on good faith along with 99% substandard material. You may want to read WP:FRINGE for a longer account of the issues involved. Once you understand how Wikipedia works, you will also be able to submit your material in an acceptable format. -- dab (𒁳) 07:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
There is no evidence that a "Carpathian Basin" script existed. And kindly cease to try to inject your term "Rovas" into the English language. This is not the term we used in English for the Old Hungarian script. This has been explained to you many times, Gábor. It is remarkable that you have so little respect for the English language, and that your personal vendetta against me for calling your 8-bit encodings "naïve" some years back, has continued to delay the encoding of Old Hungarian, and spurs you on to belittle the remarkable achievement of the Hungarians by chasing wild geese like "Carpathian Basin" and "Khazarian" scripts. You and I communicated in a friendly fashion as far back as 1998. But what you have been doing since before the Dublin meeting of WG2 (after you broke the agreement made in Budapest) has been just one act of bad faith after another. It is regrettable. But I guarantee to you, I shall not support the encoding of fictions, nor the uploading of fictions into the English Wikipedia. -- Evertype· ✆ 08:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
This is your last warning; the next time you remove Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, as you did at Rovas Atlas, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You blanked the page and removed the AfD notice despite the clear statement that this must not be done during an AfD. Dougweller ( talk) 10:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I suggest you to rewrite your deleted articles presenting their content as a minority opinion. Hopefully they won't be deleted than. Jó szerkesztést! Föld-lét ( talk) 08:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you; however, I am disappointed due to this present campaign against the Rovas scripts. I was working contiguously for one week, I tried to be as accurate as possible. I think several WP articles are not so precise, and the result: these articles were deleted. During the so-called discussion, my works were qualified "pseudo-scientific" and I also got many offensive and hurtful attributes from people (e.g. "crank author"), who are definitely not familiar with the Rovas scripts and generally they do not have any real concept about this topic. Finally, they realized that my statements are based on real references. The best what they said: "This individual artefact may scrape the notability criteria". This is far from the due process. - Rovasscript ( talk) 08:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Its scientific lobby unfortunately. I was a bit shocked, when I first saw this here, but I think the main misunderstanding is not among editors voting for deletion (who as far as I am concerned are at least to say unfamiliar with Wikipedias rules concerning content) but with those scientists who try to delegitimize scientific hypothesis (or in some cases -by all means- facts) not by presenting scientific evidence, but by character attacks on the researcher. Föld-lét ( talk) 09:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
You have right. The international view about the Rovas scripts accurately shows the state of the Hungarian paleography in the middle of the 20th century. In the last decades, many new archaeological finds and valuable scientific theories were created by officially acknowledged scholars. However, these are unknown by non-Hungarian people. I collected these results - and in some cases a little bit improved after consulting some linguists. The result: I cannot cite this book here. But that is OK. I seriously think if I had used this week for making a journal article, it could have been much more efficient. I am interested in your opinion, however, I do not use the WP regularly as logged in user, especially after this week. If you want, we can communicate in email as well. My address: hosszu@eet.bme.hu - Rovasscript ( talk) 09:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Calling other project volunteers "vandals" because they disagree with you on an editorial issue is not acceptable and constitutes a personal attack. What's more, you're engaging in an edit war; this is also not acceptable. When multiple editors disagree with you about something you're attempting to insert in an article, you have no choice but to use the talk page to attempt to gain consensus for your desired changes. -- jpgordon ::==( o ) 05:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 16:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)