User talk:Mikola22/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mikola22, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi Mikola22! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Worm That Turned (talk).

Visit the Teahouse
We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

|}

Hello Mikola22! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Ronz (talk) 20:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

October 2019[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Serbs of Croatia shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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. David Biddulph (talk) 17:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An extended welcome[edit]

Hi Mikola22. Welcome to Wikipedia. I've added a welcome message to the top of this page that gives a great deal of information about Wikipedia. I hope you find it useful.

Additionally, I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily.

Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.

If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter. Regardless, editing in a manner that promotes an entity or viewpoint over others can appear to be detrimental to the purpose of Wikipedia and the neutrality required in articles.

Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.

I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Ronz (talk) 20:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks, I'm learning a little bit, greeting.Mikola22 (talk) 20:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 2019[edit]

Information icon Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Serbs of Croatia, 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 the sandbox for that. Thank you. Denisarona (talk) 14:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived[edit]

Teahouse logo

Hi Mikola22! You created a thread called Relevant evidence. at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


November 2019[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Croatian Orthodox Church shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019 – some advice[edit]

I was about to give you a warning about edit war, but I see that you have already got two such warnings, the latest today. Please read them carefully and study the linked information, especially WP:EDITWAR, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD.

In addition, I would like you to learn more about how Wikipedia uses sources. It seems that you in some cases are trying to "prove" things by making your own analysis of old sources. That is not how Wikipedia is creating an encyclopedia; it is called original research, and you can read about it at WP:OR. Instead Wikipedia is presenting information that is produced by experts (i.e. historians), what Wikipedia calls reliable sources. Please read more about that at WP:RS. --T*U (talk) 16:05, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So far I have provided information based on books written by historians,

what exactly is it about? Mikola22 (talk) 16:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is clear from RSN this may not in fact be the case. I suggest you might re-direct your energy to less contentious edits/topics.Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please read wp:not and wp:nothere.Slatersteven (talk) 17:24, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And thinking about your edits wp:spa may be relevant. If you are taken to the edit war notice board right now I doubt it will go well for you.Slatersteven (talk) 17:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks buddy, i thought Wikipedia only came up with true information, this is chaos. How much in Wikipedia exist incorrect data it is incredible. Mikola22 (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Last word of advice, change this attitude and read wp:v, no we do not deal in truth. Also wp:fringe maybe of benefit.Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question what exactly is it about that was directed to me, I will be specific: You are claiming in Talk:Sokollu Mehmed Pasha that there are no historical documents calling him a Serb. That may be true, but it is irrelevant, since we have several (actually lots of) historians telling us he was Serb. They are reliable sources, se WP:RS. On the other side, your arguments for him being Croat is based on your personal analysis from original documents and based on his words. That is the definition of original research, see WP:OR. In addition to my reading list above, I will add one more: Please also read WP:SYNTH. --T*U (talk) 17:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But there is no historical record in which it written that he is a Serb, an American historian speaks of him as a Croat because he found in the archive that he was Croatian or from Croatia, why he is not Croatian? If some historian or encyclopedia claims that he is a Serbian origin and there is no original information that speaks of him as a Serbian then it is not relevant evidence. In Croatia we have never heard that he is a Serbian, only that he is Orthodox from Bosnia. What connection did Orthodox have with the Serbs at that time and that is the answer, this is why it is Serbian because it is Orthodox, but it is not history. Half of eastern Herzegovina switched to Orthodoxy, are they originally Serbs as well? How many Croats have switched to orthodoxy in Bosnia or Croatia in the Turkish era are they all Serbs. Mikola22 (talk) 18:17, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"In Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research" I read Wikipedia article of Serbian history in Croatia, and? Not one source has historical evidence that Serbs are coming to Croatia(western Slavonia to the Dubrovnik area) and what I learned from Wikipedia and RS, nothing. But the problem is that most peoples don't know historical facts like I do, and I wanted to change that because students, Croatian emigrants etc are reading this. There is no change and that's it. Mikola22 (talk) 17:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a warning, if you continue to try and push wp:or I will report you as wp:nothere.Slatersteven (talk) 10:13, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about Orthodox Croats[edit]

Hello, Mikola22

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Slatersteven and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Orthodox Croats, should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orthodox Croats.

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not ballot-polls. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Slatersteven}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Slatersteven (talk) 19:34, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about Orthodox Croats[edit]

Hello, Mikola22

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Slatersteven and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Orthodox Croats, should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orthodox Croats.

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not ballot-polls. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Slatersteven}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Slatersteven (talk) 19:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive edit[edit]

What do you think you are doing? With this edit, you removed my and another editor's edits from the discussion. That is disruptive. Do not do that again. --T*U (talk) 20:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What I deleted? I didn't know you answered there. Now i just saw. It may have been accidental. I have no reason to delete someone. Mikola22 (talk) 21:03, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Balkans and Eastern Europe discretionary sanctions alert[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AE result[edit]

Hi. The consensus among a quorum of uninvolved admins at AE was that you should be warned for failing to be more concise and for bludgeoning discussions. Sadko, for their part, is warned not weaponize AE to eliminate opponents of content disputes. The warning has been logged at WP:AEL. Thanks and good luck. El_C 17:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Equality[edit]

@Seraphimblade: @Awilley: I respect decision whatever will be, but I am on Wikipedia in the phase of adding information to make articles as accurate and better as possible(sometimes mistakes happen). Editor Sadko is less at that stage. He mostly deals with preservation of existing informations and writing new articles. His false accusation or mostly false accusation we must understand as pressure to keep Wikipedia articles as they were. Suppose someone(and there are more editors waiting) again come up with similar claims and then I will get a block 100%, however that block will be based on your decision(warning) in this procedure and based on editor Sadko false accusation. For this reason in fact I am more punished than the one who writes false accusations and weaponize administrative processes against ideological opponents because editor Sadko doesn’t add so much new informations to the articles. At the very beginning, I thought that editor Sadko would get punishment, not me. Not because I’m right but because of the false accusation itself. If the administrator Peacemaker67 had not come I would unfortunately been blocked and those accusations would still be false only no one would notice it. Since I was not equal in this procedure(until arrival of Peacemaker67) I had to mention this, anyway thank you and I wish everyone all the best. Mikola22 (talk) 06:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mikola, When I look at the thread as a whole it looks like multiple people, more than just Sadko, have concerns about your editing style. May I suggest that you treat that as valuable feedback? Yeah, I know, it isn't very fun to read, and there's a lot of half truth and misrepresentation in there, but try to read between the lines and identify specific things you are doing that is bugging people. Write those things down on an actual piece of paper and make a goal to change them. Goals might be something like limiting yourself to a voluntary WP:1RR regardless of whether a page is under 1RR. Or strictly following WP:BRD. Or avoiding WP:Bludgeoning by reminding yourself that less is more and limiting yourself from making long replies to every comment.
Re adding content vs. preserving the status quo, the former is always going to take extra work and patience. It takes a lot of work to understand what people's underlying concerns are and then modify what you're trying to do to resolve those concerns. ~Awilley (talk) 15:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Awilley: I immediately assumed that administrators would not read my answer to the accusation, and if I only said in my answer that editor Sadko was lying(to be brief and specific in response) maybe I would be additionally punished for that. Try to put yourself in my position. When I say "I immediately assumed that you would not read my answer" I don't mean anything bad, I understand that administrators don't really have time to read someone's explanation in detail. You are(administrators) a private persons and you volunteer here, and that is exactly what the editor Sadko was counting on. We call it hunting in muddy water. Surely I made a mistake too and I will probably make a mistake again but we know what follows after next "mistake" and that fact is a great victory for the editor Sadko. That why I say that if such a decision is made, I will be punished more severely because the basis of Sadko accusation is false. I cannot influence to your decision but I can mention this in good faith.
I have 1RR restriction, I guess that means I can within 24 hours revert 1 edit. Example, article Smiljan and information from source which is in the article and which does not exist in the source.[1] Maybe I’m blind so I didn’t see that this information is actually written in the source, then Editor Sadko and editor Amanuensis Balkanicus only needed to state in explanation where it was written, no, they are playing with me. In this "situation" I must have "consensus" for information I am deleting that has no evidence in the source? Those are basic rules of Wikipedia(the information must be based on RS) which someone doesn’t follow and I get punished. In these cases I use 1RR and if that's a problem too I don't know how I could make Wikipedia as more accurate. If I had not used that right, we would still have information in the article that does not exist in the source. I think someone from Wikipedia should reward me for doing this, I’m probably wrong, I don’t know.
But I agree with what you said and I will respect that more. If I get a block someday it will not be the end of the world, I came here to improve Wikipedia and at least I did something about it. Mikola22 (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mikola22/Archive_1&oldid=1064076586"