User talk:The Destroyer Of Nyr
SDS an SNSD
[edit]- Both SDS and SNSD supports the pro-EU initiative led by UK and Germany see here. SNSD government has said that RS would have a visible position in the EU integration process. SDS (together with SDA, HDZ, PDP and HDZ1990) one year ago joined the pro-EU declaration of values proposed by the EPP (see sources on the page. Please stop edit war. Bye --Serb1914 (talk) 16:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Edit warring at Alliance of Independent Social Democrats
[edit]Please see {{uw-3rr}} for Wikipedia's rules on edit warring. You should try to get consensus before reverting again at Alliance of Independent Social Democrats. Otherwise you are risking a block. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 00:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
For your information, Serb1914 started the editing war, and reverted MY posts WITHOUT consensus. So, obviously he should be blocked first.
- It doesn't matter who started it. What matters is if you are taking reasonable steps to search for agreement. Consider posting at WT:BiH if you want others to give their opinion. If you don't know any other editors with knowledge of Bosnia and Herzegovina, ask me and I'll check my records for who I've run across. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
January 2015
[edit]
Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Bosnian-Herzegovinian Patriotic Party-Sefer Halilović . Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Meters (talk) 20:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:Meters. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Calling an admin corrupt for protecting articles from edit warring is a really bad idea. Meters (talk) 21:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
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.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.EdJohnston (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
January 2015
[edit]
Your recent editing history at Alliance of Independent Social Democrats 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. Meters (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Serb Democratic Party (Bosnia and Herzegovina). Just stop edit warring on all of the articles. Meters (talk) 23:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Edit war on Serb Democratic Party (Bosnia and Herzegovina)
[edit]I have added a table on the talk page for the sources. Please put your sources in it, so that the evidence can be taken as a whole, and this dispute resolved peacefully. Iwilsonp (talk) 23:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Blocked from editing
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
February 2015
[edit]{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.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. Elockid (Talk) 04:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
You block me wihtout giving me a single reason? Serb1914, who VIOLATED his BAN gets to walk??? Karelian P. calls me a moron on his edit of Party of Democratic Action: Revision history, yet that is OK??? They literally RAVAGE several articles, Party of Democratic Action and Bosnian-Herzegovinian Patriotic Party-Sefer Halilović? I ask you to: 1. Lift the ban, 2. Punish the perpetrators, 3. IMMEDIATELY REVERT AND PROTECT the pages. The versions you see right now are RADICAL and EXTREMIST edits that promote FASCISM??? How can you allow fascist pages to be up??????? You are killing the truth and letting the lies live. Please solve this so I don't have to go to the arbitration committee. This is a sad day for freedom of speech and truth in general.
@Elockid:
The Destroyer Of Nyr (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I believe I did absolutely nothing wrong - I tried to stop untrue fascist edits on several articles. I warned them several times, yet no one reacted. See what you have done now - completely untrue versions of the articles are up, anyone who reads those articles will read an extremist, fascist truth and be biased for life. This is called false media brainwashing. I reverted only untrue edits, and I stand by it. The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
We settle content disputes through discussion on the talk page, not through edit warring. This is not your first edit warring block. Understand that we block people pretty much every time they edit war regardless of how right or wrong you may be. The tone of your unblock request tells me you are far from recognizing your error and as such I cannot unblock you. Chillum 21:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
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.
@Chillum: Oh really? So why is Serb1914, who VIOLATED HIS TOPIC BAN, not blocked? Why can Karelian P. call me a MORON snd make a personal attack, and there are NO sanctions? You are hypocritical and you have double standards. The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk) 21:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- Pointing out behavior of others is not going to get you unblocked. Chillum 21:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
@Chillum: But is it going to get them blocked? Because currently this is quite a double standard. Looks like we aren't all equal after all.
{
The Destroyer Of Nyr (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Same reason as above. I want this issue to be taken up by a non-biased group of admins - and not have my request blocked 3 minutes after submitting, as if WIkipedia was a dictatorship. It was not me waging an edit war, it was Serb1914 and Karelian P. I also request them to be investigated, as this is truly a double standard - Serb1914 VIOLATED his topic ban, yet nobody said absolutely a single word? Karelian P. publicly called me a MORON and made a personal attack on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Party_of_Democratic_Action&action=history yet nobody bats an eye? I am getting a feeling that Wikipedia is upholding double standards to different people, which is a shame. I only reverted their fascist articles (which they kept restoring and are currently up) and I stand by my word that I did not undo any edit that was extremely untruthful and offensive. The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Rather than address the reason for your block, you blame others, and keep asking for a "non-biased admin." I am in no way involved with your current dispute, but it is clear that your are not trying to hear that.. OhNoitsJamie Talk 04:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
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.
Why do you think I am biased? I responded quickly because your unblock request causes a notification on IRC. Chillum 22:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Because this is irrational. A guy violates his existing, indefinite topic ban SEVERAL times and nothing is done, another personally attacks me and calls me a moron, yet he is not sanctioned? And they have been the ones to keep making unconstructive edits to articles (which i had to revert) yet I am called out for edit warring? Right now, there are extremely offensive versions of these articles up which look more like mockery than serious information? And I wasn't even told which articles edit war I was blocked for? I thought that info has to be included in the ban. This is almost as funny as it is sad. I don't see any other explanation for this, other than someone not being objective. The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk) 22:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- Pointing out the behavior of others will not help you get unblocked; please see examples of bad unblock requests. You can only control your behavior and that is what you must address in order to be unblocked. If others are behaving badly, there are proper channels to address that. 331dot (talk) 23:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
How can i adress it if I am blocked and can't edit anything except this talk page? I may not control their behaviour, but you can and SHOULD. You are ADMINS. Instead, you have double standards. I still believe I only reverted completely unsourced and subjective edits. I deny the accusation of waging edit war; this was done by Serb1914 and Karelian P. Right now, the current version of these pages are ridiculous and sponzor fascist and extremist claims and hate speech. As far as my behavior goes, I insist I did nothing wrong. The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk) 23:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- Not everyone is an admin. As long as you "insist" you did nothing wrong, you will remain blocked. If you persist in making unblock requests, your access to this page can be removed as well. 331dot (talk) 23:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
You are obviously very biased, I will talk to other admins. The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk) 23:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not an admin- I was passing by and thought I could inform you of what you need to do. But since you think that everyone who disagrees with you is biased, and are only interested in discussing the behavior of others and not your own, I guess I wasted my time. 331dot (talk) 23:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
@Chillum: I will further adcovate for my unblocking, but first, since I am not able to edit any pages except my talkpage, I have to ask you to sanction Serb1914 for violating his topic ban (more than once) and Karelian P. for making a personal attack on me. I would make a more appropriate report, but since I can edit only this page, this is all I can. I am asking you this regardless of my block/unblock, as a separate matter. The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk) 00:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- I am not at your beck and call, if you want a block of another user I suggest you present evidence at the appropriate noticeboard when you have your editing privileges back. I gave you a speedy response to your first unblock request and you have rejected it. You can just wait until the next admin decides to deal with you and see just how biased they are. Chillum 00:22, 11 February 2015
So blocking one user puts a complete stop to another block, by the principle "one of the two is right, and the other isn't"? By the time I get my editing privileges back, it will probably be pointless, as they will have destroyed most articles. Thank you, I will instead wait for someone non-corrupt. The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk) 00:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
ANI section
[edit]I did not comment on anything for several reasons. First and foremost, I've got other things on my plate to dig into things. If you want to complain about another editor's behavior, you need to provide specific diffs, or links, to their edits that you find prolematic. If you don't what diffs are or how to get them, see WP:DIFFS. I'm not going to spend my time researching for you - you are the one with the issue, you need to tell people specifically where to look for the problem. With diffs. Second, it's somewhat ironic to see you complaining about personal attacks when glancing at the edit summaries in your own contributions turns up "Are you blind" and calling another editor mentally ill. I'm guessing you haven't apologized to those editors. Finally, reading through your talk page shows a lot of "It's not my fault, it's THEIRS!". Sorry, doesn't work that way. Yeah, I'm sure their editing is somewhat problematic as well but you obviously have edit-warred to get your version into articles. That will backfire on you every time. You've a bare handful of posts on the article talk pages - you MUST do more of that. Reasonable discussion, working to find some consensus. If, after discussion, that hasn't happened, read through the dispute resolution page on other options that are available. Be prepared that your preferred version may not be acceptable and if that happens, you need to learn to accept that.
You've gotten some advice on your page and in the comment Black Kite left when closing your ANI posts. Use that advice. You say that Serb1914 used an IP to get around their topic ban but you conveniently forgot to mention that they were specifically warned about that afterwards and haven't done it again. They have ignored their topic ban and have been blocked for it, then warned again. What you should have done when they editing on the 14th and 15th is posted a simple request on ANI about a topic ban violation. Give a diff for the topic ban being imposed, a diff that they have already been blocked for it, a diff for EdJohnston's warning on the 9th then links to their edits on the 14th and 15th and ask for someone to review and determine if they violated their topic ban. Do ALL the work, make it easy for an admin to see the topic ban, see they've been blocked already for it then warned again and finally that they've breached it after the warning. Ravensfire (talk) 23:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Advice & informal warning
[edit]Within 24 hours of coming off your last block you are at ANI again. With only 66 edits to mainsapce and roughly half of all your edits being your involvement in some dispute or another, taking into account the troubled history demonstrated on your talk page, be aware that eventually per WP:NOTHERE your next block might be much longer or even indefinite. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 1
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Deli Husrev Pasha, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Deli. 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) 09:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Edit warring notice
[edit]Your recent editing history at Bosnian language 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. CodeCat (talk) 22:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- Hello User:The Destroyer Of Nyr. You've made five reverts on March 1 at Bosnian language. This is enough to justify a block for WP:3RR violation. This would not be the first time for you, since your last block was one week. The next normal escalation would be a two-week block. But at this point it is worth asking if you have the skills and patience needed to edit Balkan articles. Can you explain why an admin should not indefinitely ban you from the topic of the Balkans under WP:ARBMAC? Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 22:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- On second thought: topic bans work only for those who are willing to understand and follow them. If other admins are watching this page, I suggest that an indefinite block might be the best option. The block could be reviewed at whatever time you agree to start following Wikipedia policy. EdJohnston (talk) 22:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm, did I make five reverts only or did somebody else revert MY edits first? Funny how one-sided you are. I simply added useful information, which keeps getting deleted. I have a feeling you should be writing this on somebody else's user talk. The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk) 22:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- The problem is that you insist that your information is useful, even when several editors have already made statements (in the form of reverts) indicating the opposite. Instead of discussing the matter with them, you push forward your changes and expect everyone else to bow to your whims. That's not how Wikipedia works, it's a collaborative effort. (And if you find yourself saying "I would collaborate if only the others did" then you missed the point.) CodeCat (talk) 23:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Long-term edit warring and nationalist editing on Bosnian topics
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Today you violated WP:3RR on Bosnian Language. Normally that calls for a short block, but it's one of a series of many violations. From viewing just your contributions of March 1 you've already reverted on six different Bosnia-related articles. You've been blocked twice before for edit warring, and each time you've appealed for unblock. Neither of those requests was successful, most likely because you never admitted any fault. You've also been warned that the sanctions of WP:ARBMAC apply to the topics you've chosen to edit. We expect especially good behavior on topics subject to nationalist warring. If you believe that your editing on Bosnian topics is just fine, then you and Wikipedia have a fundamental disconnect. Though I'm issuing an indefinite block, any admin may lift the block if they are convinced you will follow Wikipedia policy in the future. I doubt they will make such a decision in your favor unless you will make appropriate concessions about the problems you've caused. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
The Destroyer Of Nyr (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
In case you haven't noticed, I went to the talk page on Bosnian language and tried to talk but you blocked me right away. You are being very selective. How can I get consensus from people who don't want to talk and communicate? I will try to get consensus from now on, via talk and other things, although I strongly doubt others will accept to discuss the matter. If we cannot get an agreement, I will call on arbitration to resolve the dispute, because we are dealing with very sensitive topics, particularly national language, history, etc. I will do my best as much as I can, and, if unable to agree, let comitees make the decision. The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk) 23:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You used the talkpage after first having been reverted six times, and you also warned the users reverting you by slapping a EW-template on their talkpages. To me that just confirms what EdJohnston writes above, and is a clear reason for why you shouldn't be unblocked. Bjelleklang - talk 21:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
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.
The Destroyer Of Nyr (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have realized that I perhaps reacted a bit too hot-headed on some articles. I will attempt to establish better communication with other editors, and I hope they will return the favor likewise. I do believe I have high-quality, detailed information that Wikipedia could use, and hope that we can build a better database and encyclopedia together, and make a common contribution with as little future conflict as possible, ideally none. I will do my best not to repeat some hasty behavior from the past and I hope others will follow the same policies. The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Accept reason:
I'll unblock, but this is a last chance. PhilKnight (talk) 20:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Edit warring
[edit]Hi!
You have been reported for removing sourced informations in number of articles, and for continuing with edit warring, even though this was the reason why you have been blocked for days now.
You can see the report here.
--Yerevani Axjik (talk) 22:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
March 2015
[edit]{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Swarm... —X— 02:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)