User talk:Medule

Welcome

Hello, Medule, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Kukini 15:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss changes before making them

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Petros471 13:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also the use of sockpuppets to try and look like you others agreeing with you is completely unacceptable. Please do not do so again. Petros471 13:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

from Mosstsa

Hi, I was wondering if you could help. Some POV-pushers apparently from Croatia are removing information from Tourism in Croatia wrt attacks on tourists from Bosnia and Serbia and the minefields in Croatia warnings. They refuse to engage in discussion (some of them) where they have been rebunked with evidence and references - for instance, consider this link [1] where campagn to remove signs in order not to scare tourists is documented. All other issues have also been documented, but those people keep vandalising the page and throwing insults at those who disagree. Please put this article on your watchlist and do not allow the Coatian coverup.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosstsa (talk • contribs) 03:25, 22 March 2006

Vandalism warning

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. You've been violating the 3 revert rule again, and the fact that you started a number of revert wars as soon as your ban was lifted means that you are now treading on thin ice. Please stop reverting and insterting factual inaccuracies into articles that have been worked hard on to achieve consensus. This is your last warning. --Dr.Gonzo 23:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

You've been violating the 3 revert rule again, and the fact that you started a number of revert wars as soon as your ban was lifted means that you are now treading on thin ice. Please stop reverting and insterting factual inaccuracies into articles that have been worked hard on to achieve consensus. This is your last warning. --Dr.Gonzo 23:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all I had not been banned. Second I didnt broke 3revert rule.--Medule 23:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR on History of Croatia and on Tourism in Croatia

Please observe Wikipedia:3RR (the rule that states you shouldn't revert any article more than 3 times in 24 hrs on History of Croatia and on Tourism in Croatia. --Elephantus 00:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have not reverted more than 3 times--Medule 00:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know that, I'm just notifying you so that you shouldn't. --Elephantus 00:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have, however, violated the 3RR on Borovo Selo raid and you have been reported. --Dr.Gonzo 00:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: temporary 3RR block

====Regarding reversions[2] made on April 21 2006 to Borovo Selo raid====

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 12 hours. William M. Connolley 08:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name of the Homeland war

You might want to join the discussion here: [3]. I'm sorry for disturbance if you are not interested the discussion. --Dijxtra 12:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comments on Borovo Selo raid

Please add your statement on views at the top of the talk page in the designated area. Asterion ^{talk to me} 05:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plitvice Lakes

Medule, you added a paragraph about mines to the article Plitvice Lakes with the edit comment "mines are proved". This is incorrect. In the discussion on the talk page, where you participated too, it was proven that the mines exist in the Plitvice Lakes municipality, not in the national park. Since the municipality has its own article, the mines are mentioned there. Therefore, I will remove the paragraph from Plitvice Lakes. Please do not start a meaningless edit war. --Zmaj 06:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent vandalism

That's cute; make a sockpuppet to scold me with. You introduced numerous spelling and grammatical errors into the article, and did not discuss any of your changes before making them. That's pretty much the definition of vandalism. Mihovil 19:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject countering anti-Serb bias

Hi! I noticed your work on Wikipedia, so I believe you may want to join Wikipedia:WikiProject countering anti-Serb bias I just created.

I see that you have been frequently accused of sockpuppetry and violating the 3RR. While the 3RR accusations seem to be mostly incorrect (simple advice: don't do it), if the sockpuppetry accusations are true, don't do it too; it can be discovered and it's not a good way to deal with the problems. Nikola 19:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Žerjavić

Hi, regarding last changes, I would like you to follow structure of the article as a whole, so please don't put again the same stuff. Please put your statements into proper sections, not in the intro or sections about Žerjavić calculations. You have "Controversy" section, so please develop it and give some references. Plantago 20:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bosko

Veruj meni Josip Boskovic je bio Hrvat-Talijan. To se zna po svetu ne samo na Wiki. On nije poreklu Srbin. Ti mozes menjat kolko zelis ali istina je da ovaj covek nije Srbin bio niti ce biti. Molim vas, prestani da je bio Srbin. To nije istina.

PS Nije potreba imati nejgove ime na Srpskom jer nije nikad govorio Srpski i ne nema razloga da pise pu ime na Srpskom jeziku. Srpski jezik i Hrvatski su slicni, njegovo ime se isto pise. Please stop you bad faith edit on Boscovich article. In the spirit of Wikipedia please leave Serb Pov out of main article. You will be blocked in future if you keep persiting with fiction. You should discuss prior to maing such bad faith edits.

God Bless

Jagoda 1 22:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Joseph Boscovic

1. Why do You not accept compromise?

2. Why do You resort to violent edit-warring? That's anachronistic primitivism - we have talk pages to discuss with people who disagree with us and to solve our differences, eventually making a productive article. That's why we're all here - the more we are (and the more we discuss), the more chance is we get to a neutral version. Sticking to pushing (POV) of one version gets us nowhere... --PaxEquilibrium 19:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There

are historical sources referring to him as a Croatian ruler. --PaxEquilibrium 19:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit wars

Please stop with your edit wars regarding Croatian history articles, especially without discussing your changes. Tar-Elenion 18:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Campaignbox al-Qaeda attacks

Template:Campaignbox al-Qaeda attacks has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --— Indon (reply) — 15:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV warning

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Croatia, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- xompanthy 16:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Medule for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.

-- xompanthy 21:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After that case will be cleared you will need to apologize to me. --Medule 13:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's this thing called checkuser, and it will show that Serboman is your sockpuppet. I am quite sure of it. And in the extremely remote case it doesn't, that doesn't change the fact that you are a very consistent vandal and POV-pusher, as all the comments on your talk page and the edits you make show. Wikipedia is a wonderful encyclopedia, and people like you are only destroying it.

I hope you can realize what you are doing and stop this kind of behavior before it gets you blocked. As anyone, you can be a valuable asset and a great contributor to this project. Why do you choose not to be one? -- xompanthy 17:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop

I have alerted you to Wikipedia's rules, and I have to do so again. If you do not play nice - you will be prevented from editing for a period of time.

One of the many bases of structure of the very fabric of Wikipedia are good will and civility. As long as you keep by the two there is no Wikipedia policy to which you have got to strictly bind yourself.

Your contributions are filled with edit-warring from the day you came to Wikipedia, and 68% of your edits are such wars. I will start a Wikipedia:Request for comment if you cannot follow the two basic rules (and nothing else) that make this internet Project a functional fellowship. --PaxEquilibrium 18:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pn article of Croatia i have not started edit war. I just changed it to reflect better NPOV position. --Medule 18:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really? I wrote (referring to Ljudevit Posavski) on the talk page for you to stop edit warring - after some time you reverted again (covertly). Then it happened again.

The old version is perhaps POV, but yours is even more. I'll attempt a compromise between you 2. Comment on my talk page if you don't like it, do not just revert it. --PaxEquilibrium 18:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop

Please refrain from reverting sourced references on Bosniaks article for your own purpouses, always obey manners and rules for everyone's well being. Thank you. Ancient Land of Bosoni

Noah

Thanks for reporting him, he really needs to cool down with his extreme nationalism. I would look at the Racak incident article, but I have a feeling that I'll just spend too much time on it if I get into it, and plus, these battles during the Yugoslav war don't interest me that much... Maybe you could look into the Montenegrin Orthodox Church article, I have some trouble with people removing my referenced text. --GOD OF JUSTICE 21:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MOC

Didn't you see you mistakingly broke it? ;) --PaxEquilibrium 12:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked 24 hours for using the sockpuppet User:Serboman to violate the 3RR on Croatia. Evidence can be found at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Medule. If you believe this block is unjustified you may appeal it by placing the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am not complaining because of that block. I am complaing since you really accused me that I am Serboman what is not case. I appeal once more to investigate that better. You or somebody has made realy bad checkuser verification. I have used sockets last year when I was punished in April 2006. But not now. Please make better checking. If you find time to make additional check I will be grateful and will impose block to myself in duration of 10 days. For ten days I will not touch any article, just to make my name clear. Otherwise everybody will accuse me that I am using sockets what is not case. --Medule 18:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Since you say you do not complain about the block, there is no reason to unblock you. You may discuss the sock issue with the users involved afterwards. — Sandstein 23:08, 28 April 2007 (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.

Medule, thanks for the note. No checkuser was performed; my judgement that Serboman was your sockpuppet was based on the contributions history of both accounts. Serboman is an obvious sock, and participated with you in a 3RR violation. If I were you, I wouldn't worry about clearing your name; just make sure you don't use any sockpuppets in the future, and more importantly, don't get into any edit wars. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]