User talk:Kadribistrica

Kadribistrica, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Kadribistrica! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Doctree (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Leposavić, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Planinica. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. diff Vanjagenije (talk) 11:44, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leposavić

Please use references with claims that a village is ethnically homogeneous.--Zoupan 15:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leposavic

Why do you take off the albanian name in the villages, u know that albanian is a official language in kosovo???.--Kadribistrica

Please, don't change Serbian names of villages to Albanian wherever you see them. With this edit, for example, you broke the links. For example, the title of the article is "Lešak", but you changed the link to "Leshak/ Lešak", so the link becomes red and dosn't work. Generally, we use the same name of a subject throughout Wikipedia for consistency reasons. So, if the title of the article is "Lešak", we use "Lešak" everywhere as long as the name of the article is not changed. If you think that the name of the article should be changed, you can request the change. But, be aware that Wikipedia has certain policies regarding article names. According to the WP:COMMONNAME policy, the name of the article should be the name that is most commonly used by the English language sources. So, it is totally irrelevant what name is "official" or "native". It is only important which name is common. Maybe the best known example of this is the article titled "Burma". While the official (and native) name of that country is "Myanmar", Wikipedia still uses "Burma" because that is the most common name. Feel free to ask me (here) if you would like to know anything else. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And, by the way, both Serbian and Albanian are official languages of Kosovo. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

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. --SineBot (talk) 21:24, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ILiriaALB. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe that this block was in error, 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. Mike V • Talk 02:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Janissaries, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—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. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moving article to Albanian version and changing names from Serbo-Croat to Albanian in articles

G'day, please stop moving articles to the Albanian version of a name. On en WP we title articles based on the common name in English. Bluta is not his common name in English. All the references I have use his Serbo-Croat name. Also, please stop doing the same thing with Albanian names in articles. Continuing with this behaviour and failing to respect WP policies including WP:BRD will get you blocked very quickly. If you believe there is a case (using reliable sources) then make the case on the article talk page. Do not edit war. That will also get you blocked. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Dedia for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dedia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dedia until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Naming (Albanian-Serbian)

Hi there Kadribistrica, I see you have an interest in which names should appear to represent subjects such as in Battle for Novi Pazar. What I suggest is go along with the article titles but by all means aim to have those article titles moved if the proposed name turns out the most suitable. So far some of the edits you have made (such as Shaban Polluzha) have been correct, but not each of them. Any questions, leave me a message. Thanks. --OJ (TALK) 14:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kosovo, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Turks and Gorani. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Kadribistrica. You have new messages at Oranges Juicy's talk page.
Message added 10:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

OJ (talk) 10:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Aqif-Blyta.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Aqif-Blyta.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Visoki Dečani. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. --Zoupan 01:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your conclusion and insisting that an Albanian translation should be used in the articles of Serbian Orthodox Church buildings in Kosovo is purely provocative. The status of Kosovo is disputed, while Serbian is still official, the Albanian names are close to non-existant. The UNESCO still recognizes the churches as part of Serbian heritage. There are no Kosovo Albanian Orthodox community, and all the churches are officially part of the Serbian Orthodox Church (which does not use Albanian), etc.--Zoupan 01:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BAAAAAA i didnt know why didnt u tell me?. Ncncncnc its your fault that this happend ;),

E kuptoj brengen e juaj!

Pershendetje i nderuar,

Jam duke e pare mundimin tënd per t'i vendosur emrat shqip monumenteve e trashegimise kulturore ne Kosove - nje gje qe pak a shume jam munduar t'a bej edhe une me emra te qyteteve e bjeshkeve. Por i nderuar me bëso qe eshte e kote, keta felliqesira nuk te lejojne te arrish qellimin asesi. Une p.sh kam marrur nje block, shume here me kanë kercenuar qe do me japin block permanet me arsye absurde - "Sjellje vandale".

Keshtu qe i nderuar kur udheheqesit tone te poshter te shtetit nuk bejne asgje ne kete drejtim as ne s'kemi çfare te bejme...

Me shpresen qe kjo pune do te rregullohet ndonjehere,

Gjitha te mirat! Bashkëatdhetar i juaji! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.99.13.195 (talk) 13:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of List of Albanian Grand Viziers

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 List of Albanian Grand Viziers requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. 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 removed 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. Xx236 (talk) 06:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rexhep Mitrovica, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Order of Freedom. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo article

Hi Kadribistrica, I would strongly urge you to self-revert here, apart from the issues which have been explained to you by more than one editor, you are as we speak in breach of the one-revert-per-day policy which Kosovo is bound by, your last revert was within 24 hours of the first. That can get you blocked from editing so only you can help yourself at this point. As you're a new editor it will be in your best interest if you listen to reason and not challenge the masses. I'm another one who cannot achieve everything he wants for that very same purpose. Thanks. --OJ (TALK) 14:27, 10 September 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. Athenean (talk) 17:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kadribistrica, you are risking a block for edit warring. You've added the same list of percentages to the infobox six times since 31 August. There is no evidence that you have a talk page consensus, and you haven't responded to the objection that the data is not based on the full land area of Kosovo. There may still be time for you to avoid a block if you revert your last change. EdJohnston (talk) 01:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at Kosovo. 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. slakr^\ talk / 09:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions notice - Balkans

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

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.

--slakr^\ talk / 09:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How long im i gonna be blocked? ive been blocked now for 2 months. Kadribistrica (talk) 13:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kadribistrica: Your block is set to indefinite duration. The only way for you to be unblocked is to take the WP:Standard offer. But, in that case you have to stop creating new accounts for six months. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi you have blocked the wrong guy Albanian Historian, i havent been editing in english wiki for months now, i have ben editing albanian wiki to wait untill my six months ban

So you mean that i have to wait 6 months then i can star again?? Kadribistrica (talk) 15:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any other option. It was confirmed that you created and used several WP:Sockpuppets even after you were warned and temporarily blocked. That is considered extremely disrutive behavior, so your block was extended to indefinite duration. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok its no problem i understand. Just to be clear if i wait 6 monts will automaticly work to edit again or do i have to do some otherthing??Kadribistrica (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As explained in WP:SO, after 6 months you may ask to be unblocked (you may ask it here on this page using the {{unblock}} template), but you will not be automatically unblocked. You will need to show that you understand the reason you were blocked and to persuade admins that you will not do it again. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:19, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can i edit in other language??Kadribistrica (talk) 18:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you are not blocked in that other language. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanjagenije: hi you have blocked the wrong guy Albanian Historian, i havent edit now in months in english wiki, u can see i have benn editing in albanian wiki waiting for my sixmonth ban to end. Kadribistrica (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: :@Boing! said Zebedee: im not this albanian historian my last account i had was gjonmarkuu and i havent been editing since december look. i have been editing in albanian wiki to wait for my 6 month ban, and pls do you really think i will make a account and make a article of "Kadri bistrica", dont do this i have been waiting now 2 months for nothing.Kadribistrica (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ping doesn't work unless you sign your post. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have to use WP:ping and sign the post in the same edit. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanjagenije: hi how have you confirmed that Albanian Hitlstorian is my account?, can you give me something that he has to do with me. Since you are a admin can you help me were to send complain in this decision you have made.Kadribistrica (talk) 00:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have not confirmed that Albanian Hitlstorian is you. I just suspect you two are the same. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

it think i should be unblocked becouse i have showed in my other account that i have learned to edit, and use talk pages instead of edit warring. the edit warring i did in the kosovo articrl was wrong i was just naiv thinking that i would change it without to talk with some administers. Kadribistrica (talk) 16:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Every time you edit the English Wikipedia, either from this account, a sock puppet or an IP address, the six-month clock resets. You will not be unblocked until the six-month edit-free period concludes, when you can apply for unblock. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:40, 11 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.

question

@Denniss: Hi i was just wondering im banned for six months, it says that i cant make any edit or the six months ban will start at over again, does it also counts in commons??, and the maps i did was for tge albanian wiki not eng. Kadribistrica (talk) 15:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)Kadribistrica (talk) 15:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are not banned for six months, you are blocked indefinitely. You just may ask to be unblocked after six months according to the WP:standard offer. But, it is not guaranteed that you will be unblocked. Standard offer asks for six months without editing English Wikipedia. You are free, and even welcome to edit other Wikimedia projects (unless you are blocked in those projects too). Vanjagenije (talk) 16:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you are blocked in Commons. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So now that im blocked i commons it mean now that it start over?Kadribistrica (talk) 16:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kadribistrica: No, you being block in Commons has no direct impact to your block in Wikipedia. But, it might turn opinion against you. Remember: you have the right to request unblock after six months and to ask for standard offer, but it is not guaranteed that you'll be unblocked. You will have to persuade admins that it is good idea to unblock you. Admins may choose not to unblock you since you are actively socking in Commons. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Hi, i would like to apply for a unblock. I think i would do it fine now in enwiki, i have been editing in albanianwiki (learning) and been watching the english editors how to edit and how to use the talk page and how the rules goes by in the last six months. I have learned that the talk page is very important, and that the best way to change anything or edit something important is to first use talk page not edit warring. I have learned now that if u want to change someones name or a citys you have to request for it, not as i did just moved it without requesting for a move. And that you have to have realible sources when you edit, not to edit without sources. And the sockpuppets i have was really bad of me i understand that now that there was no need to make another sock. I made one sockpuppet "GjonMarkuu" since i got blocket indefinite. I understand now why i got blocket and it was all my fault, i always made new socks and changed the names from serbian to albanian and edited without sources and edit warring. And i will not edit like i did before i will take it very seriously Kadribistrica (talk) 15:44, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It's not been six months since the last of the sockpuppets identified at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kadribistrica/Archive. Six months is the minimum for us to start considering whether or not to unblock you. Yamla (talk) 16:03, 30 June 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.

Question

@Yamla: so they blocket my sock gjonmarkuu in february, does it mean that i have to wait to august to request for a unblock? becouse i stopet editing with gjonmarkuu 30 december so i thougt i could request now six months after.Kadribistrica (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The belief is that Albanian Historian (talk · contribs) is probably one of your socks. That user last edited in February. --Yamla (talk) 16:45, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: Albanian Historian its not me you have got all of my socks, if this Albanian Historian would be mine it would long time ago be confirmed. This albanian historian its not me how can i do to take this account of off my name? Kadribistrica (talk) 16:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given your history, I don't think that's going to be possible. I think your best approach is to wait another couple of months to hit six months since the last edit on that account. The problem is, you have extensively abused the sockpuppet policy which in combination with the technical evidence, makes it hard to take you at your word with regard to that account. --Yamla (talk) 17:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: I dont know what to say, so i have to wait now another 2 months becouse you "suspect" that Albanian Historia is me?. if he was my account i would have said it as i did in Gjonmarkuu. look att my first request i did, he told me that everytime i edit with a sock or a ip adress the six months ban will start over. So if this albanian historian would be mine it would had start over. Its crazy you have cought all of my socks and confirmed it immediately, if this Albanian Historian would be mine he would to get confirmed. Cant u check a spi case? not so sure what it means/ip adress?. Im not this albanian historian u can see that i was editing in albanian wikipedia as soon as i stopt with gjonmarkuu. Kadribistrica (talk) 17:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you blame us? You have a history of sockpuppetry and a significant number of abusive accounts. I mean, you can ask another admin to review now, but honestly, you'd be pushing your luck a bit even if it was clear you had gone six months. --Yamla (talk) 18:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: I understand that you dont trust me i made many bad things in the begining but every man can change. if you think its better for me to wait untill august i will wait. But if this Albanian Historian makes another sock or something dont let it on me, becouse i tell you right now that i will wait. Kadribistrica (talk) 18:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC) @Yamla: How can i do to prove that Albanian Historian isnt me? Kadribistrica (talk) 19:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that's realistically possible. --Yamla (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: What do you mean? Kadribistrica (talk) 19:29, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given your history of abuse, I don't think there's any evidence you could present that would convince me you are entirely unrelated to Albanian Historian. I obviously can only speak for me, not for other administrators. --Yamla (talk) 19:36, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: You make it like i am Albanian Historian do you have any proff that im him?. Its very strange that you decline my request becouse you "suspect" that i am him. You have to have some proff or something that says i am Albanian Historian. And about my history you are making it like i will never change i will always have socks, if it were like that i would not talk to you like this i wouldnt ask you for a apply to get unblockt. I would instead use suckpuppets. I am here to change i want to edit normal like all of you. I understand that i have done many socks and thing but you have to give me a second chance. And pls im not albanian historian if i were him i would have told you and waited but im not him, dont decline it just for that. Kadribistrica (talk) 20:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The investigation is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kadribistrica/Archive. Really, that's all I have to say on this topic. You are welcome to have another admin review your block. --Yamla (talk) 21:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: Did you came in here just to say NO?. Have you been looking at it a little bit? this is crazy becouse you suspect that im him, thats really strange. You are a admin i want to ask you how can i go further with this i dont want another admin. Kadribistrica (talk) 21:22, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing more to say, given the sockpuppet investigation. It's not so much that I suspect you have used the Albanian Historian account, it's what's listed on the sockpuppet investigation page. My response to your unblock request was to decline it and state that I am not certain you have waited the six months outlined by other admins. If you want to be unblocked now, you will have to deal with another administrator. You can do so simply by using the unblock template again. --Yamla (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: If i do a new unblock request can it happend that i get blockt from my talk page? Kadribistrica (talk) 23:17, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One more unblock request won't get you blocked from your talk page. It's entirely appropriate to request another admin review this particular block. We tend to get grumpy when people just make the same request over and over again without getting the point or bringing forward any new arguments. You've made one request so far in six months and I explicitly state it's appropriate for you to have another admin review this block. --Yamla (talk) 00:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

Kadribistrica (talk) 12:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Kadribistrica. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Hi i would like to get unblockt. I understand now how wikipedia works since ive been editing in swedish and albanian wiki for sometime now. I understand now how important its is to follow the rules. I know now that i have done wrong, with making new accunts all the time, edit warring and everything else, it was beginner mistake i took the whole wikipedia as a joke and didnt know how serious it was and how it worked. I would like to get a second chance. Thanks.

Decline reason:

You have not been editing on Albanian Wikipedia since 13 December 2016 [1], and on Swedish Wikipedia, you were indefinitely blocked 3 January 2016 [2]. So, you are obviously not telling the truth. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:29, 1 May 2018 (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.

Orphaned non-free image File:Aqif-Blyta.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Aqif-Blyta.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:23, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

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/Kadribistrica, 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.

Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 20:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

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/Kadribistrica, 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.

Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:50, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]