User talk:Sevvyan

May 2014

Do not create, add, maintain, insert, or restore hoaxes on Wikipedia, such as you did with the article Royal family. Usually, hoaxes will be caught and marked for deletion shortly after they are created. If you are interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method would be to try to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia – and then to correct them if possible. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia. Feel free to take a look at the five pillars of Wikipedia to learn more about this project and how you can contribute constructively. Thank you. Yopie (talk) 21:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful before accusing me of a fraud because I included a link to what's been publicly called the Bosnian royal family. If local media report on a country's royal family then we should list it in the list. Please maintain Wikipedia:NPOV and be civil. Sevvyan (talk) 21:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ideabeach.. Thank you. Yopie (talk) 22:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just responded. Feel free to add your 2c. Sevvyan (talk) 22:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Please find my notice of your edit warring here. Borsoka (talk) 05:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ottoman Bosnia and Herzegovina, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Royal. 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) 09:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but you protected the page Bosnia and Herzegovina as edits were being made, thus resulting in a reference missing in the Infobox. The red warning message on top of a level-4 (nation) article looks very bad. Not to mention that you now froze a non-sourced claim by someone that Bosniaks (presumably mostly Muslim) make majority in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which I was trying to revert which may look like violation of 3R rule but only because no one is watching the page but me and I don't have admin privileges to block IP and other vandals... Sevvyan (talk) 23:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The edit war seems to have been going on for several days. You should have posted this at WP:RFPP a while back. I know nothing about the subject but just noticed the edit war. With a bit of luck another admin who knows about the subject will turn up to help but I can't make the edit. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 00:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes I should have but since there's a lack of attention (by editors as well as admins) I can't do it all. Can you cut me some slack here, and at least let me correct the Infobox real quick so that the red warning is gone? Sevvyan (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the missing reference warning, but... What you have done is fixing the reference warning while allowing a potentially disastrous edit for at least a week. The reference is to a gossip website www.doznajemo.com (Bosnian for: This Just In), on their allegedly exclusive access to new census data in Bosnia. The data are sealed by the government and international peace implementation council because it's the first census since before the bloodshed of 1990s. Their "exclusive" information would have the extremely sensitive balance of ethnic groups heavily disturbed. Please remove that edit/provocation immediately and revert to the CIA World Factbook reference, or unlock the article. Sevvyan (talk) 01:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that I can't judge the quality of the references and I can't revert because that would then make me part of the edit war. You should post on the talk page of the article and try and get other opinions. You could also try the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. If you can show there is a consensus for removing the reference then I can change it. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 02:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you missed it, but it's a website they use as the (only) source. A website is never considered a reliable source, let alone the one to replace the CIA Worl Factbook data as a ref in a country article. Hope things are clear now. Please revert the edit to the CIA ref immediately. Thanks. Sevvyan (talk) 02:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Bosnia and Herzegovina". Thank you. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 03:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits 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.Stop nominating B/H for FA. It fails out of hand criteria stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process. Gaff (talk) 23:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I had no idea it could be seen as disruptive to nominate a country article that's been substantially improved since its last nomination which failed, back ni 2006. Bosnia is a controversial place, the article will probably never cease to be a target of trolls and IP vandals. Should that exclude it from candidacy? I don't think so. Sevvyan (talk) 23:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* In that case, if you do not agree with me and are acting in good faith, you should revert my edit and nominate the article. However, the FA criteria clearly state edit warring is a rule out. Sorry if I acted too harshly in my knee jerk fashion... --Gaff (talk) 00:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting your stance, I nominated the article again. However you're not the only one who acted harshly. Perhaps you want to join the discussion? Thanks. Sevvyan (talk) 00:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Ban Borić. 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 07:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia we don't reach consensus by leaving Talk pages empty and simply declaring the discussion outcome like you did here. Please tone down your posts, don't threaten, and be civil. Thanks. Sevvyan (talk) 12:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please calm down, see No personal attacks, Avoid personal remarks, Staying cool when the editing gets hot, and would advise Removing uncivil comments (your comment on my reply).--Crovata (talk) 13:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That does sounds scary. However, please answer the question you were asked: how can your opinion on Bosnia's deep history be taken seriously when in your user page you state (a non-existent) Serbo-Croat as your mother tongue? The emotional bio means you don't accept Bosnia should even exist, yet we're supposed to believe that you will make a non-biased contribution to such a topic? Sevvyan (talk) 13:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know what you're talking about. Just, please calm down. My last reply.--Crovata (talk) 14:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by "calm down" as it's you who came to my page to post. Glad it's your last post, does it mean you're calmed down now? Sevvyan (talk) 14:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FAC

Just to let you know that it's been standard practice for years that if an article is nominated for FA status and the FAC coordinators consider that the nomination is so unsalvageable that there is no point in documenting the attempt in the article's {{article history}}, then it gets speedily deleted under G6. Before renominating, please: provide proper references for the uncited paragraphs and the sentences that have been specifically challenged as dubious; fix the lack of consistent reference formatting; ensure that all images are properly licensed and where applicable have proper fair-use rationales (you'll never get File:1984_Winter_Olympics_logo.svg through a review for use in this article); and generally make the article much, much better than it currently is. Sorry to be so blunt but there it is. It is far below FA standards and I suggest you run it through peer review after you've worked on it some more but before coming to FAC again. That way you will get outside eyes on the article and if you can resolve issues to their satisfaction they may well help / support the promotion to FA status in due course. Bencherlite ^Talk 14:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please quote a rule that supports what you've just said, namely "it's been standard practice for years...". If unable to produce such a rule, please undo deletion without delay. Thanks. Sevvyan (talk) 15:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant rules are here, for the definition of a G6 deletion, and here in the instructions at the top (relevant parts include the phrase "in the judgment of the coordinators"). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links. However, the first one is to the rules for speedy deleting a nomination (none of which apply here!), not for nominating an article. The page that the second link points to makes on mention of the phrase "standard practice" at all. Can you produce the rules or not?? If not, please undo the deletion. Thanks. Sevvyan (talk) 15:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, did you bother to read the criteria for FA candidacy prior to nominating? If so, then what did you make of this criteria: stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process? --Gaff (talk) 15:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a country article, and Bosnia is a highly controversial place, so it's hard to expect for trolls and IP vandals to ever stop attacking. Should that exclude such articles from ever been considered? I don't think so. Sevvyan (talk) 15:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trolls and vandals can certainly be dealt with through requests for page protection. This article is not stable due to edit wars, which is completely different. From a glance at your talk page, it appears you are party to the edits wars, toeing the line of a block. Such issues as what references to use for certain facts need to be worked out on the talk page. This article is not appropriate for FA until that is addressed and I humbly suggest that you not submit it again until it meets the base criteria. --Gaff (talk) 16:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. Being a good guy on an article like this is rather exhausting - people would run you over in a heartbeat, if you only gave them a chance. If you look more closely at the edits in the last week, you'll see that I was the one who has made most contributions trying to improve the article itself. At the same time, all the "edit wars" were in fact my attempts to repel IP- and other vandals who kept reverting one or two pieces of information mostly in the Infobox (I guess you could call them true attention-seekers as the Infobox gets more attention from visitors obviously; not me who is trying to nominate the article because I contributed to it quite a bit). Sevvyan (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Block request granted

It's simpler, though, to just ask to be blocked, rather than feel compelled to act like an idiot until no one has a choice. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]