User talk:NikolaZrinski

September 2023[edit]

Hello, I'm Austronesier. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Austronesier (talk) 21:14, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Which comment are you referencing? NikolaZrinski (talk) 21:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Troll", "some bully". Do you think that's appropriate, just because they have disagreed with your first edit? And NB not just out of a whim, but for specifiied Wikipedia-policy based reasons. If you are genuinely interested to participate in a collaborative project, you'd better refrain from calling someone a troll just because you feel they won't let you have it your way. –Austronesier (talk) 02:55, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bullying and demeaning[edit]

Hi Nikola,

I'm troubled by your comment at the reliable sources noticeboard. Bullying and demeaning behavior has no place here. Would you be willing to provide a link to the page where you feel that you've been bullied and demeaned? I loathe this type of behavior, especially given that the rudest editors around here tend to be the most ignorant. They compensate for that ignorance with arrogance. However, there are nice, constructive editors on this website, too, so I hope you don't decide to abandon Wikipedia altogether because of this. Pecopteris (talk) 00:55, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your concern.

I am quite turned off by my first experience here but I will not take this issue any further.

Be well. NikolaZrinski (talk) 01:53, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 14:43, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have no idea what "sockpuppet" is nor did I have any intention of doing anything wrong.

The rules clearly state that "using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not,"

My desire was to have one account for personal purposes and one for my contributions to Croatian history. If I have done something wrong, I apologize.

I did not use the two accounts for illegitimate reasons is not,"

Was this done because of the complaint that I submitted against Miki Filigranski?

If it is, is this blocking action in "good faith"? NikolaZrinski (talk) 15:05, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The most charitable interpretation of what you did is this: You edited project space with an undisclosed alternative account. That's a clear-cut abuse of multiple accounts. WP:PROJSOCK. Checkuser verified abuse of multiple accounts. Courcelles (talk) 15:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a noob, I guess I made a mistake. So that this does not happen again, feel free to delete the account ZidarZ and keep active the NikolaZrinski account. This will prevent any possible acts that can be interpreted as "sockpuppetry". NikolaZrinski (talk) 15:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that my complaint against Miki Filigranski has been deleted.

Is this the true objective of this ban? NikolaZrinski (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First and foremost, please calm down because your editing and behavior is overreacting from the get-go. You were making edits and comments on content and other editors, not only me, which are more disruptive than constructive. Nobody was attacking you or having lack of good faith in you for mere reverting your edits or wall-of-text copy-pasted content on talk pages and so on. That's a normal process here and understandable between experienced editors. These two accounts were indefinitely blocked because you were using multiple accounts in the same time and not in a constructive manner anyhow when started to use them to attack on other editors because of a content dispute. Your blocking has nothing to do with me or your objection with me specifically. Unfortunately, I truly believe nothing of this would have happened if you informed yourself how the editing and other policies function on Wikipedia. To everyone here you show every sign you did not inform yourself well. You need to read and understand that very well before starting to edit various articles, especially articles which are of higher quality rating. I think you did bring some insight on content which possibly could be edited into some articles, although it is not neccessary or has some copyright issues (this is an encyclopedia), but as you are a starter, it could have been done with just asking a question or advising some proposal on a talk page and some editor probably would check it and done the editing within a week up to a month (better never rush anything). Please, have patience and take your time to read the editing policy of Wikipedia (Help:Contents, Help:Introduction, WP:PILLARS, WP:10SIMPLERULES, WP:NPOV, WP:RELIABLE, WP:VERIFY, WP:OR, WP:BRD) before appealing a block in the future. This is not the end and please do not make another account in the meantime. All the best. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:35, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I read the rules and guides. As a noob there is much to learn, I admit that but I do not think I did anything wrong.

You have no idea how I felt being UNDER ATTACK.

Wow - I am being criticized for being passionate about contributing in my area of expertise.

How do you think a person feels when they spend much time doing work and then having it deleted with some flippant comment by some faceless editor? It does not feel good. You might think you did nothing wrong but to me your actions were "not nice". People here speak of treating newcomers with good faith and respect but I did not experience that.

You criticize my "wall of text". Wow - criticized for sharing information on Wikipedia in the hopes of contributing to having a better article written. Amazing. Why did I contribute that information? Because 1. the article in question was not very good, and 2. after realizing how easily much time and effort can disappear at the whims of self-interested editors I did not want to waste my time and thus provided information so that a profession like yourself could take that info and improve the article.

To be honest, some of you senior editors are not very nice people.

But, I guess that is what happens when you have power and anonymity. NikolaZrinski (talk) 18:55, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is it not rather strange that after I submit a complaint about you that I get banned and deleted and now I see the message:

Topic: “Complaint about Miki Filigranksi” was archived or removed from Wikipedia:Administrators’ noticeboard.

To me, it seems like corrupt cops protecting corrupt cops. NikolaZrinski (talk) 18:59, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not use the two accounts for illegitimate reasons

That is untrue, there are many instances of you inappropriately using these two accounts to back yourself up.

Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts: There are quite a few instances of you doing this, including contributing to the same articles with both accounts (e.g. Siege of Szigetvár) and generally having both accounts operating in the same topic area.

Creating an illusion of support: As NikolaZrinski you started discussions about the reliability of self published books, including one by Ante Mrkonjić, on an article talk page [1] twice on the reliable sources noticeboard [2] [3] and on the talk page of another editor [4], with your position being that the books should be usable, but with no one agreeing with you. You then swapped to your ZidarZ account and made a post where you pretend to be a different person, singing the praises of the books, stating them to be the best English language books on Croatian history ever published and asking other people to say that they are reliable [5].

Posing as a neutral or uninvolved commentator: As NikolaZrinski you got involved in a dispute with Miki Filigranski on the articles Siege of Szigetvár [6] and Nikola IV Zrinski [7], with Miki reverting your edits. You then swapped to your ZidarZ account and asked other editors to dox and block Miki [8].

Avoiding scrutiny: / Misusing a clean start: As ZidarZ you were alerted to the contentious topics procedures for eastern Europe and the Balkans and warned for edit warring in it [9]. You created a new account, pretended to be someone brand new and continued with the same poor behaviour in the same controversial topic area, collecting a couple of warnings for personally attacking other editors.

In my opinion the most realistic path you have to an unblock at this point would be to accept a topic ban from eastern Europe and the Balkans, and spend a significant amount of time editing in less controversial topics while you learn how editing/talk page discussions/sourcing/dispute resolution works on wikipedia. When you have a history of trouble free contributions you can ask for the topic ban to be lifted. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 10:46, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]