User talk:Jovan741jov

November 2015

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be 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. NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding incorrect speedy delete tags to articles. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:44, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Rudina (mountain). If you do not stop your inappropriate speedy deletion requests, you will be blocked from editing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! Jovan741jov, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! -- samtar ^whisper 12:56, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your current actions

Hi Jovan741jov, your current actions aren't very constructive, and could result in you getting blocked for disruptive editing. How about you take a time out and have a chat with either myself or some nice folk at the Teahouse to find out where your enthusiasm could be put to better use? If you reply here, typing {{ping|Samtar}} will let me know you want my attention. Hope to hear from you soon -- samtar ^whisper 13:01, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jovan741jov, I see you have also asked over at User talk:NeilN about deletions. The problem is that you have been tagging pages with inappropriate speedy deletion tags. Speedy deletion is only for a small number of very restricted reasons, which are described at WP:CSD. If your reason for wanting an article deleted is not in that list, then you should not use a speedy deletion request - and you most certainly should not tag an article with a CSD:G7 request indicating that the original creator wants it deleted, when you are not the original creator! As NeilN suggested, you should have a good read of WP:AFD, which tells you how to go about requesting the deletion of articles - but even by that route, you would need to show that you have a sound policy-based reason for deleting an article.
But, instead of launching yourself right into article deletion as soon as you have arrived, how about you follow Samtar's suggestion above, and spend a little time at the Teahouse where you can learn about how the project works and where you can best help? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:17, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Debelo Brdo

I've started a deletion discussion about Debelo Brdo for you, creating the nomination page itself and have tagged the article correctly. Please add your explanation for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debelo Brdo, and please do not nominate any more articles for deletion until this one has concluded. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:34, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I told you you should add your comment to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debelo Brdo, not to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Debelo Brdo! I have copied it across for you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:30, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2015

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:31, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT remove my comments from the deletion discussion - in fact, you must not remove any other editors' comments from any discussions. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:56, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 22:34, 28 November 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).

Jovan741jov (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It's been 24 hours since blocking my account.

Decline reason:

...and? You're blocked indefinitely. Max Semenik (talk) 02:18, 30 November 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.

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).

Jovan741jov (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Unederstand administrators I understand that I blocked due to deletion of other peoples's comments. Feel free unblock me because I realised that it is forbidden to delete any comment. You can be sure that it will no longer work.

Please include a decline or accept reason.

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.