User talk:Serb1914: Difference between revisions

Hello, Serb1914, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Serbian Progressive Party. 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! --Biblbroks (talk) 23:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Serb1914 and welcome to Wikipedia,

as Wikipedia is based on Verifiability, it is not acceptable to simply remove information that is supported by reliable sources. If you have doubts about the reliability of the source, or its correct renderring, please address these concerns on the respective talk page. Please also remember to summarize and explain your edits in the edit summary field below the edit box. Thank you for your your understanding, Kind regards. --RJFF (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Serbian Progressive Party, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Estlandia (dialogue) 17:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Serbian Progressive Party, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. --RJFF (talk) 19:54, 27 June 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.

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.

As you may have suspected already, this is because of a summer-long edit war on Vukovar. Please use dispute resolution next time. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for your work on the English Wikipedia.

I noticed an article you worked on. Just a short note to point out that we don’t normally link:

• dates
• years
• commonly known geographical terms (including well-known country-names), and
• common terms you’d look up in a dictionary (unless significantly technical).

This applies to infoboxes, too.

Thanks, and my best wishes.

Tony (talk) 09:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thanks for noticing the error in the PSD article. However, according to the official site of the European Parliament, there are 2 UNPR, 1 PC, and only 13 PSD MEPs: [1]. Do you have another source stating PSD has 14 MEPs?Anonimu (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to three reverts you have made on Donetsk.

• 11:44, 4 October 2014
• 13:09, 4 October 2014
• 11:34, 5 October 2014

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 that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. 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.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.146.168.215 (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk • contribs) 22:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Alliance of Independent Social Democrats shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Meters (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Serb Democratic Party (Bosnia and Herzegovina). Just stop edit warring on all of the articles. Meters (talk) 23:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)‎[reply]

I have added a table on the talk page for the sources. Please put your sources in it, so that the evidence can be taken as a whole, and this dispute resolved peacefully. Iwilsonp (talk) 23:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk • contribs) 23:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following sanction now applies to you:

Indefinitely topic banned from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to the Balkans.

You have been sanctioned due to continued edit warring over a long period of time (including currently at Bosnian-Herzegovinian Patriotic Party-Sefer Halilović)

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/Macedonia#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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]