User talk:Nwbocploumouic

February 2014

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Nezir Škaljić has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Nezir Škaljić was changed by Nwbocploumouic (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.851642 on 2014-02-08T11:52:08+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 11:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

why two map--Nwbocploumouic (talk) 14:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Broke Template:List of castles in Europe

I undid your edit to Template:List of castles in Europe as you 'broke' the template by leaving off the closing curly braces "}}". Please be careful as this template is used in over 60 articles. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 16:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How to edit the Template--Nwbocploumouic (talk) 16:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They can be complicated. Help:Template Jim1138 (talk) 16:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of castles in Europe

While most of Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan are in Asia, some is in eastern Europe. So, I restored these two countries to the list. Jim1138 (talk) 16:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Punctuation

You removed commas "," from a number of articles. Those commas are required for 'proper' English sentence structure. You also removed a "?" from the title of an article which is in the published article and should be there. Please do not do that. Jim1138 (talk) 16:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking of Nezir

Per this edit you removed the content of the Nezir article. I have undone this, it makes no sense. After you did this, you proposed it for deletion due to a lack of references?? You are the one who removed the references! It is hard to sympathize with your behavior. If you have legitimate concerns about the article content, explain them on the talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking article of blocked sock--Nwbocploumouic (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

checked the article source removed as there's no evidence to back it up. The article referenced doesn't provide sources or evidence to substantiate its claims and is also riddled with inaccuracies and contradictions of blocked sock.--Nwbocploumouic (talk) 17:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid your edit looks like plain vandalism. Who is the blocked sock, and if I may ask, how are you so knowledgeable? Did you have a previous account yourself? EdJohnston (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article creator checke--Nwbocploumouic (talk) 18:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have a previous account yourself,,,, no Editing as ip

@Nwbocploumouir, generally, you have the right to revert the edits of a sock. However, in this case, the sock created the article, Nezir (since renamed by you), and you blanked the article. That is effectively the equivalent of deleting the article (see WP:CSD#G5), which (a) can only be done by an administrator and (b) would not technically apply because it was created before he was blocked as a sock. If you have problems with the article's sources and notability, you are welcome to take it to WP:AFD, but you can't make disruptive edits to the article, or you risk being blocked. It would also appear that you are making at least some disruptive edits to other articles and templates. Then, you are incorrectly leaving posts on other editors' pages accusing them of doing something wrong when the fault lies with you. BTW, at this point, I have trouble believing that you never edited under another account as to just editing as an IP.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hanks for clearing that up for me!--Nwbocploumouic (talk) 19:13, 8 February 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:Nwbocploumouic reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: ). Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at User talk:Dougweller. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for persistent disruptive editing. 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 adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Dougweller (talk) 19:50, 8 February 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here Nwbocploumouic (talk) 19:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. [stwalkerster|talk] 20:08, 8 February 2014 (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 account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are 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 adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here. ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. m.o.p 22:43, 11 February 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

what sock puppet nonsense claim! Nwbocploumouic (talk) 22:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:58, 11 February 2014 (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.