Do not create, add, maintain, insert, or restore hoaxes on Wikipedia, such as you did with the article Royal family. Usually, hoaxes will be caught and marked for deletion shortly after they are created. If you are interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method would be to try to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia – and then to correct them if possible. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia. Feel free to take a look at the five pillars of Wikipedia to learn more about this project and how you can contribute constructively. Thank you. Yopie ( talk) 21:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
You are suspected of
sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the
notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ideabeach.. Thank you.
Yopie (
talk)
22:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Please find my notice of your edit warring here. Borsoka ( talk) 05:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ottoman Bosnia and Herzegovina, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Royal. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the missing reference warning, but... What you have done is fixing the reference warning while allowing a potentially disastrous edit for at least a week. The reference is to a gossip website www.doznajemo.com (Bosnian for: This Just In), on their allegedly exclusive access to new census data in Bosnia. The data are sealed by the government and international peace implementation council because it's the first census since before the bloodshed of 1990s. Their "exclusive" information would have the extremely sensitive balance of ethnic groups heavily disturbed. Please remove that edit/provocation immediately and revert to the CIA World Factbook reference, or unlock the article. Sevvyan ( talk) 01:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of
your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been
reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the
welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use
the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page.Stop nominating B/H for FA. It fails out of hand criteria stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process.
Gaff (
talk)
23:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing, as you did at
Ban Borić. Your edits have been
reverted or removed.
Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. -- Zoupan 07:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Please calm down, see No personal attacks, Avoid personal remarks, Staying cool when the editing gets hot, and would advise Removing uncivil comments (your comment on my reply).-- Crovata ( talk) 13:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Just to let you know that it's been standard practice for years that if an article is nominated for FA status and the FAC coordinators consider that the nomination is so unsalvageable that there is no point in documenting the attempt in the article's {{ article history}}, then it gets speedily deleted under G6. Before renominating, please: provide proper references for the uncited paragraphs and the sentences that have been specifically challenged as dubious; fix the lack of consistent reference formatting; ensure that all images are properly licensed and where applicable have proper fair-use rationales (you'll never get File:1984_Winter_Olympics_logo.svg through a review for use in this article); and generally make the article much, much better than it currently is. Sorry to be so blunt but there it is. It is far below FA standards and I suggest you run it through peer review after you've worked on it some more but before coming to FAC again. That way you will get outside eyes on the article and if you can resolve issues to their satisfaction they may well help / support the promotion to FA status in due course. Bencherlite Talk 14:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
It's simpler, though, to just ask to be blocked, rather than feel compelled to act like an idiot until no one has a choice. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 19:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Do not create, add, maintain, insert, or restore hoaxes on Wikipedia, such as you did with the article Royal family. Usually, hoaxes will be caught and marked for deletion shortly after they are created. If you are interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method would be to try to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia – and then to correct them if possible. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia. Feel free to take a look at the five pillars of Wikipedia to learn more about this project and how you can contribute constructively. Thank you. Yopie ( talk) 21:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
You are suspected of
sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the
notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ideabeach.. Thank you.
Yopie (
talk)
22:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Please find my notice of your edit warring here. Borsoka ( talk) 05:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ottoman Bosnia and Herzegovina, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Royal. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the missing reference warning, but... What you have done is fixing the reference warning while allowing a potentially disastrous edit for at least a week. The reference is to a gossip website www.doznajemo.com (Bosnian for: This Just In), on their allegedly exclusive access to new census data in Bosnia. The data are sealed by the government and international peace implementation council because it's the first census since before the bloodshed of 1990s. Their "exclusive" information would have the extremely sensitive balance of ethnic groups heavily disturbed. Please remove that edit/provocation immediately and revert to the CIA World Factbook reference, or unlock the article. Sevvyan ( talk) 01:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of
your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been
reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the
welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use
the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page.Stop nominating B/H for FA. It fails out of hand criteria stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process.
Gaff (
talk)
23:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing, as you did at
Ban Borić. Your edits have been
reverted or removed.
Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. -- Zoupan 07:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Please calm down, see No personal attacks, Avoid personal remarks, Staying cool when the editing gets hot, and would advise Removing uncivil comments (your comment on my reply).-- Crovata ( talk) 13:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Just to let you know that it's been standard practice for years that if an article is nominated for FA status and the FAC coordinators consider that the nomination is so unsalvageable that there is no point in documenting the attempt in the article's {{ article history}}, then it gets speedily deleted under G6. Before renominating, please: provide proper references for the uncited paragraphs and the sentences that have been specifically challenged as dubious; fix the lack of consistent reference formatting; ensure that all images are properly licensed and where applicable have proper fair-use rationales (you'll never get File:1984_Winter_Olympics_logo.svg through a review for use in this article); and generally make the article much, much better than it currently is. Sorry to be so blunt but there it is. It is far below FA standards and I suggest you run it through peer review after you've worked on it some more but before coming to FAC again. That way you will get outside eyes on the article and if you can resolve issues to their satisfaction they may well help / support the promotion to FA status in due course. Bencherlite Talk 14:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
It's simpler, though, to just ask to be blocked, rather than feel compelled to act like an idiot until no one has a choice. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 19:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)