User talk:Adrianisv

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Adrianisv! Thank you for your contributions. I am Marek69 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Marek.69 ^talk 22:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you.Jingiby (talk) 15:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 15:15, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All information is cited in the 'Nomenclature' section. Please, refer to my changes punctually. What exactly is the problem? Adrianisv (talk) 15:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that your changes do not correspond to the historical truth. Also, the map you insert is without any source. You took my map and made random changes to it, without sources. Also, you are required to provide the original source of your map. Files without sources can be deleted. Kandi (talk) 15:36, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean they do not correspond to the historical truth? It's verified information, cited in the very next section. I did not took your map nor made random changes to it. That map is from the Romanian version of Wikipedia. I will add the source once I get back to my PC. But feel free to change the map, just use a different one than the one presented in the 'Rise' section. Adrianisv (talk) 15:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know my job. Your file is a copy of my modified map, without a source. Kandi (talk) 15:47, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with you changing the map. Just use a map different than the one from the 'Rise' section. As far as the editing of the first paragraph goes, you just posted on my page with the users Kandi and Kingiby, and I will get you banned for trying to alter historical facts. Adrianisv (talk) 15:51, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Jingiby (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did some edits to the first paragraph, according to cited, verified information presented in the following sections of the broader article. I asked you to revert the changes one-by-one. You have no reason to undo my whole work. Good luck. Adrianisv (talk) 17:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article. Jingiby (talk) 04:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I already told you it's information verified in the "Nomenclature" section. Please, do not bother me anymore. You can revert my changes one-by-one, stating your reason for editing. Adrianisv (talk) 05:31, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Second Bulgarian Empire, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Blatant edit-warring and POV-pushing! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 18:14, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You should justify your "warning". The information I've posted is in accordance to cited, verified information from the "Nomenclature" section. I have justified all my edits. Good luck. Adrianisv (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 05:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Second Bulgarian Empire

Please, do not attempt to undo my work. If you want to edit something out, you can do so by making one-by-one changes. Also, make sure to state your reasons in the "edit reason" field. The information in the first paragraph is cited, verified information from the very next sections of the page. Thanks. Adrianisv (talk) 13:23, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Second Bulgarian Empire. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 20:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know the previous indefinite block has been lifted and you should be able to edit again. I recommend not continuing to edit war though. FDW777 (talk) 07:18, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPA and WP:NOTHERE

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but your recent edits appear to be intentional disruptions designed to illustrate a point. Edits designed for the deliberate purpose of drawing opposition, including making edits you do not agree with or enforcing a rule in a generally unpopular way, are highly disruptive and can lead to a block or ban. If you feel that a policy is problematic, the policy's talk page is the proper place to raise your concerns. If you simply disagree with someone's actions in an article, discuss it on the article talk page or, if direct discussion fails, through dispute resolution. If consensus strongly disagrees with you even after you have made proper efforts, then respect the consensus, rather than trying to sway it with disruptive tactics. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 09:54, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jingiby (talk) 09:56, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The original name of the Second Bulgarian Empire

Hi, may you please explain, why did you delete the original name of this historical country Bulgarian tsardom or Царство блгарское, as it attested by archaeological artifacts written in the then official state's language (Middle Bulgarian). That circumstance was confirmed by reliable secondary English sources which were also deleted as vandalism. What does that mean? Jingiby (talk) 11:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite partial block from the Second Bulgarian Empire

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain areas of the encyclopedia for edit warring (egregious). Last chance before a site wide block. Use the article talk page (Talk:Second Bulgarian Empire, which you may still edit) to gain the needed consensus for your changes, please. Use additional steps in the dispute resolution process if at an impasse.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C 13:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]