User talk:Pasuria

Welcome

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia.

I noticed you recently made some major edits to Myth of Skanderbeg that could be considered controversial.

It is generally a good idea to propose and discuss major or potentially controversial changes on the talk page of the article, and establish community consensus before making them.

I have not reverted your edits, but others may do so if they think they are inappropriate, since you didn't establish consensus before making them. Please remember to avoid an edit war (that's repeatedly changing the page back to how you think it should be) – instead, discuss civilly on the talk page to reach consensus. If that fails, you can seek dispute resolution.

By the way, you may find the Introduction or the primer for newcomers useful for learning about contributing to Wikipedia.

Thank you. — Lauritz Thomsen (talk) 21:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Myth of Skanderbeg

Hello. The article does not say that Skanderbeg did not fight as Albanian leader against the Ottomans. As a hero, his figure has become a source of admiration, legends and myths. That is what the article is about. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Myth of Skanderbeg 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: Myth of Skanderbeg was changed by Pasuria (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.852219 on 2020-08-02T21:18:27+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 21:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Myth of Skanderberg

You should probably be discussing such major changes on the article's talk page and reach consensus first. Deletion might be more appropriate than simply parts of the blanking the page. Please avoid edit warring (that's repeatedly changing the page back to how you think it should be). Thank you.

(To be clear: I don't have any involvement with or opinion on the subject. I just noticed your behaviour in the recent changes log.)

— Lauritz Thomsen (talk) 21:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
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. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Scorpions13256 (talk) 21:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Continue

I suggested you to use the talk page, but I see you got blocked for a day. Your concerns can be discussed on the talk page of the article, where more editors are able to give their input. Meanwhile, do not revert there anymore. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Myth of Skanderbeg

Vlla, I checked your changes of Myth of Skanderbeg and you have valid reasons for quite a few of them, but the best way to get things done is by using the talkpage of the article and through discussion the artcile may be revised. By rushing into editing when your edits have been challenged once, it gets you nowhere. Ma mire ta besh n'rregull, sesa ta besh shpejte :) --Maleschreiber (talk) 00:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

Hello, I'm DoebLoggs. I noticed that you recently removed content from Demographic history of Kosovo without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. DoebLoggs (talk) 07:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do not need to be in English

You seem to be under the impression that sources need to be in English. They don't. Read Wikipedia's guidelines on citing sources if you are unsure of what constitutes a reliable source. Until then, please don't remove large amounts text from articles without first discussing your concerns on their talk pages. Thank you. Scorpions13256 (talk) 07:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Demographic history of Kosovo, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. DoebLoggs (talk) 07:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]