User talk:Brikcity

Welcome!

Hi Brikcity! I noticed your contributions to Trojeručica and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Vanjagenije (talk) 22:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Giovanni Thomas Marnavich, 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. Demetrios1993 (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Template:Albanians. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
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. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 04:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please refrain from removing my valid contributions without reason. My contributions are in no way disruptive and aim to provide accuracy. Brikcity (talk) 04:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not valid! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 05:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is valid! Can you explain why it's not, and why the other one is more valid? Brikcity (talk) 05:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Antiquated symbols are not used to represent peoples in these templates! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 05:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an antiquated or obsolete symbol, and it is more representative of all Albanians in the ethnic group, not just citizens of the Republic of Albania. The image you keep reverting to is the coat of arms of the modern republic of albania, which leaves out all of the albanians in the other countries mentioned in the template. Brikcity (talk) 05:53, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring, as you did at Template:Albanians. 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 review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Arbëreshë people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arbanasi. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of The Light of Britayne

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on The Light of Britayne requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. MaximumRespect! MrFixer200 (talk) 19:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hi @MrFixer200, I'm currently working on adding more information to the page and it won't be short; could you please remove the speedy deletion request? Brikcity (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring, as you did at Template:Albanians. 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 review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, as soon as your previous block expired, you continued edit war at Template:Albanians. That means that you still do not plan to stop edit warring and I had to re-block you. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Vanjagenije, I did not continue edit warring; I created a topic on the talk page and the topic was discussed with several users. I wrote that I intended on making the change, unless anyone disagreed, in which case we could continue the conversation but that wasn't the case. Please reconsider the block here Brikcity (talk) 16:17, 11 July 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

User Vanjagenije previously blocked me for edit warring after I had requested that another user's actions be reviewed for edit warring; I gave several warnings as well, though I understand that I was blocked because while trying to undo the user's invalid removal of content, I reverted the changes.

In this case, I tried my best to adhere to wikipedia's guidelines by creating a topic in the template's talk page to seek consensus. I notified my intents to make the change unless anyone disagreed but I got approval. I think @vanjagenije might have missed the conversation on the talk page and has hastily labeled my contribution as edit warring. Brikcity (talk) 16:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were edit warring. Nothing was "hastily labeled". We can't unblock you if you don't demonstrate an understanding of what you did wrong and make a credible commitment to act differently in the future. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:16, 16 July 2024 (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.

Unfortunately, this does not appear to be an accurate retelling of events. You said "I think i'll go back to using this flag for the sake of inclusion, but I'm happy to continue this conversation, especially with any Albanians who feel otherwise." You most certainly did not say you wouldn't make the change if anyone disagreed, you simply said that you were happy to continue the conversation. And you singled out Albanians rather than the editing community, an inappropriate idea on Wikipedia. You claim above that you said you'd make the change unless anyone disagreed but you waited all of three minutes and then went ahead and made the change. This is clear edit warring. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CoffeeCrumbs: How long should I have waited? I still don't see anyone disagreeing with me in the talk page. what are the rules on waiting to make an edit? I notified my intent to make the change, and my willingness to discuss the issue. If people disagreed, then we could revert it or find a better image. Instead a user actually agreed with my change. Would anyone else have been able to make that change except me? Btw, Considering its a topic that represents the albanian community, I felt that comments/ objections from them would be especially valuable in the talk page, I'm not sure what I said there that's wrong. This particular change was not me warring against anyone. Brikcity (talk) 22:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no set time, but the idea that you should be waiting just three minutes before accepting there's no disagreement is absolutely ludicrous and stretches the assumption of good faith far, far, past the breaking point.

And no, Albanians don't get a special privilege of discussion issues related to Albanians. Americans don't get priority in articles abut the United States, French editors don't get their opinion on La Marseillaise moved to the front of the line. Given your actions, you really should read up on Wikipedia's core policies and guidelines, especially WP:CON.

As far as I can tell, you did basically nothing to try to foster a discussion about the issue other than drop a line that you would make the change unless someone disagreed, you waited three minutes and then changed it anyway, and then invited other people, but "especially Albanians" to discuss it with you.

This was a good block, and again, I strongly urge you to read up on how Wikipedia works, because continuing to edit war like this will just get you longer and longer blocks. That's not what anybody wants; everyone wants editors busy making the encyclopedia better, not being prevented from editing. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

agree to disagree, I guess! thanks Brikcity (talk) 23:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Light of Britayne moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to The Light of Britayne. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Drmies (talk) 00:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was not a good idea, that other account. User:Austronesier, here we go. Drmies (talk) 00:47, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]