User talk:BosnaSRB RS

Welcome!

Hello, BosnaSRB RS, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

April 2015

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Tvrtko I of Bosnia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.--Zoupan 21:38, 21 April 2015 (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. DVdm (talk) 13:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm DVdm. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Tvrtko I of Bosnia— because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. DVdm (talk) 13:21, 22 April 2015 (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. - DVdm (talk) 13:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Tvrtko I of Bosnia

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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.

The full report is at the AN3 noticeboard (permalink). There appears to be a chance you will be blocked indefinitely. EdJohnston (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Users: DVdm, Surtsicna clear case of an agenda account. Their sources are meaningless!

Tvrtko I of Bosnia

Titles

In 1377, he signed himself "King of Serbs, Bosnia, the Maritime and the Western Parts"

King of Serbs, Bosnia, the Martitime and West Parts - Wiki

look at my sources

1.

Mavro Orbini

Il regno de gli Slavi, hoggi correttamente detti schiavoni; page 358

Mavro Orbini says that Tvrtko crowned in Orthodox monastery Mileševa. Metropolitan monastery Mileševa crowned Tvrtko.

Tvrtko is the Orthodox Christian.

2.

Željko Fajfrić

Željko Fajfrić(2000). Kotromanici

tekst/text

"To je ohrabrilo Tvrtka da se u Mileševu, na grobu Svetog Save kruniše za kralja (26. oktobar 1377.). Osim kraljevske titule uzeo je i ime Stefan (Stefan Tvrtko I)"

translate

"It encouraged the Tvrtko to be in Mileševo, at the tomb of Saint Sava crowned king (October 26th 1377). Besides the royal title and took the name Stefan (Stefan Tvrtko I)"

Tvrtko is the Orthodox Christian.

3.

Vladimir Ćorović

and other relevant historians

unblock my account--BosnaSRB RS (talk) 18:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of those explicitly claim that he was Orthodox, only that he was crowned in an Orthodox monastery – SYNTHESIS.--Zoupan 08:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First

Иn the Charter of 1382, Tvrtko says that he follows the faith of our first parents, Messrs Serbian. Which means that he was an Orthodox Christian.

Second

Holy Archdeacon Stefan - Slava of King Tvrtko Kotromanića.

link: http://www.spc.rs/sr/vesti_iz_eparhije_budimljanskonikshitshke_6

spc.rs - The Serbian Orthodox Church

3rd

To be crowned a king in the Orthodox Church, he must be an Orthodox Christian.

--BosnaSRB RS (talk) 17:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

BosnaSRB RS (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Unblock my account.Be fair. Something about me (see contributions): https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=BosnaSRB_RS&project=sr.wikipedia.org&uselang=en

Decline reason:

You have failed to give any cogent reason to unblock. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Continued edit warring at Tvrtko I of Bosnia

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Non-stop edit warring at various articles including Tvrtko I of Bosnia. This resumed after the one-week block issued to you on 22 April for warring on the same article. (See the link to a previous AN3 report that appears above). If you would like to have this block lifted we would need to be convinced you will follow Wikipedia policy in the future. So far you are totally convinced you are right and are oblivious to all feedback. This is not a good combination. EdJohnston (talk) 23:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|reason=First

In the Charter of 1382, Tvrtko says that he follows the faith of our first parents, Messrs Serbian. Which means that he was an Orthodox Christian.

Academy of Sciences and Arts of the Republika Srpska
Academy of Sciences and Arts of the Republika Srpska, page 73

Second

Holy Archdeacon Stefan - Slava of King Tvrtko Kotromanića.

link:  http://www.spc.rs/sr/vesti_iz_eparhije_budimljanskonikshitshke_6

spc.rs - The Serbian Orthodox Church

3rd

To be crowned a king in the Orthodox Church, he must be an Orthodox Christian.

Tvrtko is a Orthodox Christian. BosnaSRB RS (talk) 23:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)}}[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

BosnaSRB RS (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

reason I HAVE arguments; WHERE ARE THEIR ARGUMENTS? Just like that block? I offered literature, irrefutable fact. RECORDING OF SERBIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH; DOCUMENTS OF Academy of Sciences and Arts of the Republika Srpska; .... WHY YOU ME block ??? Because I WROTE THE FACTS ?????????--BosnaSRB RS (talk) 23:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

So far you are totally convinced you are right and are oblivious to all feedback.
You have just proven this assessment to be correct. MER-C 01:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

BosnaSRB RS (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Unblock my account.Be fair. Something about me (see contributions):

https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=BosnaSRB_RS&project=sr.wikipedia.org&uselang=en

Decline reason:

You have failed to give any cogent reason to unblock.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:58, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

BosnaSRB RS (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Unblock my account.Be fair. Something about me (see contributions):

https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=BosnaSRB_RS&project=sr.wikipedia.org&uselang=en

Decline reason:

You have failed to give any cogent reason to unblock.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:58, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

BosnaSRB RS (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was right when I said that Tvrtko also claimed the title King of Serbs from 1377.

Then I quoted a document from Academy of Sciences and Arts of the Republika Srpska. I was blocked because I wrote factors. I created 187 pages on Wikipedia.... https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=BosnaSRB_RS&project=sr.wikipedia.org&uselang=en

Stephen Tvrtko I (1338 – 10 March 1391) was Ban of Bosnia from 1353 until his coronation in 1377 and King of Bosnia thereafter. He also claimed the title King of Serbs from 1377 - Tvrtko I of Bosnia

See I was right.

I was blocked because I was a novice!

Decline reason:

You are not blocked for being wrong in a content disagreement, or because you "wrote factors", or because you are a novice, you are blocked for edit warring - and edit warring is the wrong way to settle a dispute even if you are right. What you need to do is address the content disagreement by discussion on the article talk page and seek a consensus there (presenting your supporting evidence there, not here), and until you show some sign that you understand that, you are not going to be unblocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Continuing to argue a specific content dispute is not a good way to be unblocked. If you would like to have this block lifted we would need to be convinced you will follow Wikipedia policy in the future. Your theory that you were blocked 'because you wrote factors' doesn't make any sense. What does it mean to 'write factors'? EdJohnston (talk) 15:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: He meant "facts". His English is not so good, obviously. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston Admit you're wrong. Do not be haughty. --BosnaSRB RS (talk) 16:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

BosnaSRB RS (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

What you need to do is address the content disagreement by discussion on the article talk page and seek a consensus there - Boing! said Zebedee→ I agree. I was a beginner. Give me a chance Boing! said Zebedee --BosnaSRB RS (talk) 6:08 pm, Today (UTC+1)

Decline reason:

As already explained above, you have to show us that you understand the reason you were block and to convince us that you will not repeat that behavior. I see none of these. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Since this is my block that is being appealed, I can't decline the unblock request myself but I am allowed to disable the user's talk page access if it appears they are not trying to sincerely address the concerns expressed in the previous declines. See WP:GAB for how to create a convincing unblock request. EdJohnston (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Vanjagenije (talk) 22:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

BosnaSRB RS (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #20582 was submitted on Feb 09, 2018 22:10:48. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]