User talk:BjeliRabac

Â

Welcome

Hello BjeliRabac, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of contents

Department directory

Need help?

Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

BjeliRabac, good luck, and have fun. – Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Battle of Zavlaka (1941) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

[[Fon der Olenic]] rushed from [[Valjevo]] to relieve the beleaguered garrison stationed in [[Battle of Loznica (1941)|Loznica] wich were under attack by Chetniks lead by [[Veselin Misita]].

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BjeliRabac, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi BjeliRabac! 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 peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Technical 13 (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:41, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Yugoslav Front

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. Thank you. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Battle of Banja Koviljača

The article Battle of Banja Koviljača has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No sources, notability unestablished. A Google Books search [1] failed to identify any sources whatsoever for this "Battle".

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Battle of Zavlaka (1941)

The article Battle of Zavlaka (1941) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No sources, notability unestablished. A Google Books search [2] failed to identify any sources whatsoever for this "Battle".

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Yugoslav Front (2)

Could you do us a favour and only add links to existing articles? A few red links (five or less) is okay but those long lists you create are not suitable. So please, create a good, well sourced article first before adding a link in the template. Thanks in advance. The Banner talk 10:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Battle of Zavlaka (1941) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Battle of Zavlaka (1941) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Zavlaka (1941) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Battle of Banja Koviljača for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Battle of Banja Koviljača is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Banja Koviljača until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:38, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Yugoslav Front (3)

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

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please 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, 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, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Continuation of this behaviour will result in a report to an administrator. You clearly have failed to engage on this talk page or the template talk page, you do not have consensus for these additions, and your behaviour is disruptive. Stop now, thanks. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of AfD templates Battle of Zavlaka (1941) and Battle of Banja Koviljača

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Battle of Banja Koviljača. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you.

January 2014

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Template:Yugoslav Front. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. 46.107.88.236 (talk) 22:51, 18 January 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:BjeliRabac reported by User:Peacemaker67 (Result: ). Thank you. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

--Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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.

You've been given plenty of opportunity to discuss your changes, but you failed to do so over a period of several weeks. Please start following some of this advice people have shared with you. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Action of 16 November 1943 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Action of 16 November 1943 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Action of 16 November 1943 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 01:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Action of 10 April 1940 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Action of 10 April 1940 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Action of 10 April 1940 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 01:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coach

Hello,

First of all I would like to thank you for your addition of the Battle of Banja Koviljača. That is certainly notable and important event which is now voted to be kept on wikipedia. I am glad I could help there.
I would also like to thank you for complying with opinion of other editors and removal of redlinks in your last additions to the above template.
Your addition of the Battle of Zavlaka will probably be merged into another article because, as one editor nicely summarized it, not every war-incident is a "battle" nor is it possible that those battles/skirmishes end in a "decisive victory".
There was a discussion at Template talk:Yugoslav Front inspired by your addition to this template. It is basically concluded that "the template is a monster with or without the excessive red links by BjeliRabac. To make it more useful, it should be split threefold with every column a separate template..."
One editor stated "Instead of "prosecuting" him, I advice BjeliRabac to take a coach to find his way in Wikipedia. On the other hand, I will warn BjeliRabac that consideration and advice is not limitless. "

What you did was wrong. You were in dispute with another editor. Instead of reverting all of you should discuss your position on the talkpage. There is a wikipdia policy WP:3RR which was violated.

If you decide to return to wikipedia and continue editing I am offering my help if you want to find your way in Wikipedia. Also, per above comment, please bear in mind that consideration and advice is not limitless so please take a better care in future not to violate wikipedia policies.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:55, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Antidiskriminators remarks are rather harsh and he forgot to mention that the quotes are of my hand and were made on Template talk:Yugoslav Front#Edit warring over large number of redlinks and addition of battle articles that are currently being AfD'd. In fact I said that I took you as a new editor in need for some help. So I will suggest that you read Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user and request an experienced editor to be your coach and mentor. Wikipedia is not always easy and some rules and habits could be extremely frustrating. A coach can help you avoid the pitfalls and can help you to be a happy editor. Good luck! The Banner talk 20:19, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. I did not have intention to be harsh. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I offered you my help if you decide to return to editing wikipedia, but after this message I withdraw my offer. I have zero tolerance for this kind of blatant incivility and personal attacks. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014

You've been here at this point long enough to know how people don't appreciate violations of the WP:BRD process - it's your turn to discuss this significant, WP:BOLD change on the Talk page.

This is your last warning from me; further refusal to discuss the matter and continuing to revert without explanation will be met with a block. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I went looking for any of your other Talk page contributions to see if I was missing anything, but all I found was this edit where you make numerous personal attacks on other users. I understand some Wikipedia procedures seemed to be very unwelcoming to you. That is unfortunate, but that doesn't really excuse your failure to acquaint yourself with them, or excuse insulting people a month later. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Mathonius. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Capture of Banja Koviljača, with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Mathonius (talk) 16:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Operation Prijedor with this edit, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Mathonius (talk) 16:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014

Please stop removing Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages as you did with this edit to Operation Chameleon '92. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Optakeover ^(Talk) 16:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for your concern but many of the editing I added are actually on Wikipedia it's self:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WarriorofShiism (talk • contribs) 04:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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.

You appear not to have listened to any of the advice any of the users you came in contact with gave you. This is still not a permanent block. Please reform, not all of your changes are vandalism. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:17, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Categorisation of Battles involving Chetniks

G'day, the reason I reverted your edits is that there is a subcategory for these battles. The parent category is Category:Battles involving Chetniks, and these battles fall into the subcategory of Category:Battles of World War II involving Chetniks. Categorisation is quite important on Wikipedia, and some editors do not understand it properly, it certainly took me some time to get the hang of it. But in this case your edits were reverted for good reason. The categorisation tree for Chetniks is not terribly complex. User:No such user has rightly reverted your reversion on Srb uprising. Please revert all your incorrect categorisations of WWII battles. You might like to have a look Wikipedia:Categorization. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:04, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, its chapter WP:SUBCAT: A page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category (supercategory) of that category (unless the child category is non-diffusing - see below). For example, the article "Paris" need only be placed in "Category:Cities in France", not in both "Category:Cities in France" and "Category:Populated places in France". No such user (talk) 07:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, on the basis that the child category of Category:Battles of World War II involving Chetniks is a diffusing sub-category of Category:Battles involving Chetniks, and the fact that you are only on WP every now and again, I am rolling back your categorisations. Please read the guideline on categorisation that No such user has linked, and do not engage in edit-warring on this issue. You have been warned and blocked in the past for not following WP policies. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Bosnian War

Can you prove that Template:Campaignbox Bosnian War is for battles only? The Banner talk 00:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

G'day, BjeliRabac. I have noticed that you often edit without an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may think you're being sneaky. Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s). Thanks! Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Capture of Banja Koviljača may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kosovo Operation (1944) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

1944.svg|22px|border|Albania]] [[National Liberation Movement (Albania)|Albanian Partisans]]<small>(Limited Involvement<br>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Regards IJA (talk) 07:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 07:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

Hello, I'm The Banner. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Template:Campaignbox Bosnian War seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. The Banner talk 21:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Operation Una. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. The Banner talk 21:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish... (User talk:BjeliRabac) 21:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Operation Corridor 92, you may be blocked from editing. The Banner talk 21:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey wanker! There was no "disruptive editing" as you wrongfully claim. Prove it if you think otherwise. The only "disruptive editing" to be found is coming from the likes of cowardly trolls like yourself

(User talk:BjeliRabac) 21:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Manual warning

You have been warned time and time again to stop adding non-neutral texts, especially unsourced, into articles. The fact that you have been away for a while, does not give you the right to start edit warring and POV-pushing again. And no you start throwing accusations of sock-puppetry around like grass seed. You better stop all of that or face the consequences. The Banner talk 21:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you hide behind "administrators" does not give you the right to revert EVERY SINGLE EDIT and get away with your cowardly acts. You will suffer the consequences...

(User talk:BjeliRabac) 21:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cursing, insults and personal attacks will not help to give you more credibility. The Banner talk 21:54, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at User talk:BjeliRabac. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please 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, 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, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. The Banner talk 21:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Banja Luka incident. The Banner talk 00:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Go burn in hell...

FYI

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents where I have reported your disruptive edits and POV-pushing. The Banner talk 02:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, Nothing productive for you to do except blantly make false accusations against other users with less power than you...Well done mate...You've proven yourself to be a worthy coward.

Regardless of your false accusations; You won't get away your childish act.

Please carefully read this information:

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.

—/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive edits to a range of Yugoslavia in WWII articles

G'day, please stop removing valid categorisations and infobox material from articles. Your recent edits on Pavle Đurišić, here, Jezdimir Dangić here and Dobroslav Jevđević here are disruptive and demonstrate an intention to impose a point of view not consistent with the sources. Please stop. I note you have now been ARBMAC warned. You appear to edit intermittently, but if you return to this behaviour I will be asking for ARBMAC sanctions to be imposed. You do make some useful edits, so it would be good if you could edit within WP policies and guidelines and restrain the extremely poor wikibehaviour displayed above and elsewhere on WP. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kosovo War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page KLA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for long-term disruptive editing of various kinds, including persistent IP-sockpuppetry, using a number of proxies in an attempt to avoid scrutiny of your disruptive edits. 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. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesBWatson: You'll see why you were wrong! I rule! I rule!

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:33, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!