User talk:Fiva16

Fiva16, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Fiva16! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join experienced editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from experienced editors. These editors have been around for a long time and have extensive knowledge about how Wikipedia works. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from experts. I hope to see you there! I JethroBT (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

September 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ali Rıza Efendi may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

is a memorial house.<ref>http://www.vlada.mk/?q=node/3638 Memorial house of Ataturk in Kodžadžik]]</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Ioannis Kapodistrias shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. 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. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on User talk:Dr.K.. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ioannis Kapodistrias is covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBMAC

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Balkans, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

EdJohnston (talk) 12:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We often see edit wars over the nationality of famous people, sometimes by brand-new editors such as yourself. Your desire to reveal Capodistrias's Albanian connection might be regarded as pro-Albanian boosterism unless the balance of reliable sources considers this connection notable. Notability on Wikipedia is not hereditary, and does not depend on who your ancestors were. Please wait patiently for consensus to be reached on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 12:56, 15 September 2014 (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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Fiva16 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: ). Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 15:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

September 2014

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Markos Botsaris. 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
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. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 15:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Markos Botsaris shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. 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. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Biar122, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Action pending

Per the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Fiva16 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Referred to WP:SPI) it seems likely you will either be blocked as a sock, or blocked per WP:NOTHERE as an editor who is too partisan to work on a neutral encyclopedia. This opens a brief window of time for you to explain what you're up to if you hope to remain as a Wikipedia contributor. Let us know if you are willing to modify your approach. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]