User talk:Bernolákovčina
Welcome
Welcome!
Hello, Bernolákovčina, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!
RJFJR (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Categories
Nice of you to do work on the categories of templates, but could you update the documentation as well? Not to mention Wikipedia:List of monthly maintenance categories with templates. Debresser (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
As to the concerns you raised, see Template_talk:Lead_rewrite#Deleting_The_Categories_It_Is_Linking_To_Directly_And_Replacing_With_Category:Lead_section_needing_rewrite_Or_Something_Along_Those_Lines.3F., where I replied. I have also put up a link to there on the other templates you changed. Debresser (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Capitals in headers
According to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#Section_headings we do not use capitals in headers. The same applies to talk pages, so please take it easy on the capitals. Debresser (talk) 17:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Previous accounts
I note that you deleted a comment from another editor asking whether you had ever edited under another name, but I believe the question was pertinent, given your obvious familiarity with Wikipedia. What was your previous account, please, and why are you not editing with it? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- I do not understand why it is pertinent. I used to edit as an anonymous user, but I read a lot of the policies on wikipedia before creating this account.Bernolákovčina (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- For why it is relevant, see the lead of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Debresser (talk) 20:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Why did you remove my query about this? Goodvac (talk) 01:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- You say you "used to edit as an anonymous user", but that's probably true of the vast majority of Wikipedia editors. The really pertinent question that you're being asked is: Have you ever had another registered account, and if so, why are you no longer editing with it? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Per Wikipedia:Clean start, an editor may abandon an account and start a new one. As long as they are not using two accounts simultaneously, they are not doing anything wrong and do not need to answer questions such as this. They are also quite within their rights to remove messages from their talk page. I understand the concerns of editors here, but I don't think this line of questionning is going to be helpful. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- If the editor is making a clean start, then all he had to say is "Yes, I had a previous account, but I am making a clean start" and that would be that -- no one would ask what the account was unless the editor's contributions became problematic, in which case knowing the previous account would become necessary to see if there was a continuing pattern. But this editor has not said that, and his strong familiarity with intricate details of the way Wikipedia works is not something likely to be explainable by previous history as an anon.
As I think you acknowledge with your mention of "clean start", the editor's work strongly indicates that he has a significant past editing history, and I think the project has good reason to know under what name or names he edited under, bearing in mind that many banned editors make useful contributions before, for whatever reason, they are banned. After that, banned is banned, no editing may be done, useful or otherwise, because the community has weighed the benefits of the banned editor's work against the disruption caused by the editor and decided that it's a net negative allowing the editor to contribute. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- I disagree with this, because banned editors have been allowed to come back, consensus can change, and it continues to be seen if future edits are disrupting wikipedia.Bernolákovčina (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Banned editors have been allowed to come back when they comply with their bans, and ask the community to be allowed to return. Sockpuppetry is always held against a banned editor in that case, even when their editing as a sock has been constructive -- so if you are banned, and wish to return to editing, I suggest you come clean, make a statement about why you'd like to return and why you deserve another chance, and the community will consider it. The longer you sock, the harder that will be. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- If you find that awkward to do under these circumstances, you can e-mail ArbCom, explain your situation and ask that it be brought to the community (if the ban was community imposed) or considered by the appeals subcommittee if it was imposed by ArbCom. Or, pick an editor you trust who's in good stead with the commmunity and e-mail them asking to bring it up. But, given your editing, the question is not going to go away, no matter how many comments you delete from your talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- So this is basically a witch hunt: if I was to be revealed that I was a banned editor, I will be banned (analogous to to an innocent not surviving the burning) with no guarantee that the community or consensus (analogous to ""the towns people" or "the opinion of the people""); if I do not reveal that I am a banned editor, I will be banned, sooner or later (such as the waiting time between the accusation and the witch trial).Bernolákovčina (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- No, this is a legitimate inquiry by already three independent Wikipedia editors, and I see no reason why you should not answer (unless you are in fact a previously banned editor, in which case you should be restricted again unless you renounce your previous edit pattern). Debresser (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- So if i was a banned editor, and i was to renounce my previous edit (or editing) pattern, does that mean I will be unbanned? How is this not a witch hunt? I am supposed to leave my fate to other people.Bernolákovčina (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Call it whatever you want, but the fact remains that such are the rules on Wikipedia, which are determined by consensus. If you think these rules are incorrect, feel free to try and change them, but from within the system. Let's not get too philosophical about this. 21:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)Debresser (talk)
- (ec) You can only be unbanned by the people who banned you, ArbCom or the community -- you cannot do that by your actions alone. That doesn't mean that you are powerless, though. It is in your hands to reach out to the community or ArbCom, and it is you that will make the arguments which, you hope, will convince them to reverse your ban. Only you can do that -- and only you can foul it up by continuing to edit as a sock. As a said, the longer you wait, the harder it will become. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- So if i was a banned editor, and i was to renounce my previous edit (or editing) pattern, does that mean I will be unbanned? How is this not a witch hunt? I am supposed to leave my fate to other people.Bernolákovčina (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- No, this is a legitimate inquiry by already three independent Wikipedia editors, and I see no reason why you should not answer (unless you are in fact a previously banned editor, in which case you should be restricted again unless you renounce your previous edit pattern). Debresser (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- So this is basically a witch hunt: if I was to be revealed that I was a banned editor, I will be banned (analogous to to an innocent not surviving the burning) with no guarantee that the community or consensus (analogous to ""the towns people" or "the opinion of the people""); if I do not reveal that I am a banned editor, I will be banned, sooner or later (such as the waiting time between the accusation and the witch trial).Bernolákovčina (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- If you find that awkward to do under these circumstances, you can e-mail ArbCom, explain your situation and ask that it be brought to the community (if the ban was community imposed) or considered by the appeals subcommittee if it was imposed by ArbCom. Or, pick an editor you trust who's in good stead with the commmunity and e-mail them asking to bring it up. But, given your editing, the question is not going to go away, no matter how many comments you delete from your talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Banned editors have been allowed to come back when they comply with their bans, and ask the community to be allowed to return. Sockpuppetry is always held against a banned editor in that case, even when their editing as a sock has been constructive -- so if you are banned, and wish to return to editing, I suggest you come clean, make a statement about why you'd like to return and why you deserve another chance, and the community will consider it. The longer you sock, the harder that will be. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- I disagree with this, because banned editors have been allowed to come back, consensus can change, and it continues to be seen if future edits are disrupting wikipedia.Bernolákovčina (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- If the editor is making a clean start, then all he had to say is "Yes, I had a previous account, but I am making a clean start" and that would be that -- no one would ask what the account was unless the editor's contributions became problematic, in which case knowing the previous account would become necessary to see if there was a continuing pattern. But this editor has not said that, and his strong familiarity with intricate details of the way Wikipedia works is not something likely to be explainable by previous history as an anon.
- Per Wikipedia:Clean start, an editor may abandon an account and start a new one. As long as they are not using two accounts simultaneously, they are not doing anything wrong and do not need to answer questions such as this. They are also quite within their rights to remove messages from their talk page. I understand the concerns of editors here, but I don't think this line of questionning is going to be helpful. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- You say you "used to edit as an anonymous user", but that's probably true of the vast majority of Wikipedia editors. The really pertinent question that you're being asked is: Have you ever had another registered account, and if so, why are you no longer editing with it? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Discussion elsewhere
Hello Bernolákovčina. Your edits have been mentioned at User talk:SandyGeorgia#Editor unilaterally declaring WikiProject advice pages to be part of the Manual of Style. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
A BARNSTAR FOR YOU!!!
|
The Surreal Barnstar | |
| You are super awesome! Will'swiki000 (talk) 02:31, 20 January 2012 (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) 14:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)