User talk:NormalguyfromUK

Welcome!

Hello, Albanian 7, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Battle of Muriq, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's content policies and may not be retained. In short, the topic of an article must be notable and have already been the subject of publication by reliable and independent sources.

Please review Your first article for an overview of the article creation process. The Article Wizard is available to help you create an article, where it will be reviewed and considered for publication. For information on how to request a new article that can be created by someone else, see Requested articles. If you are stuck, come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can help you through the processes.

New to Wikipedia? Please consider taking a look at our introductory tutorial or reviewing the contributing to Wikipedia page to learn the basics about editing. Below are a few other good pages about article creation.

Article development
Standard layout
Lead section
The perfect article
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, ask me on my talk page. You can also type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:25, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Battle of Muriq

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. WP:BEFORE checks yield nothing.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:25, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Are you fluent in another language besides English? I would suggest you edit that language's Wikipedia instead of the English one. The grammar at The attack on the Soviet naval presence is not clear enough for this project, unfortunately. Ovinus (talk) 22:24, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The attack on the Soviet naval presence, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Vietnamese and Marine.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Albanian-Greek border incident

Please see the discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Albanian-Greek_border_incident the result was merge.Alexikoua (talk) 02:24, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Alexa, I wanted to ask you why you deleted the wikipedia article and for what reason Albanian 7 (talk) 12:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for the reply. There was a discussion on the redirection of this article to another one. By the way the citation you provided were not supportive with the text of this article. Alexikoua (talk) 00:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commas not periods

Hi Albanian 7. I was fixing some 'no target errors' on your article Albanian-Yugoslav conflict (these are were {{sfn}} templates are used, but have nothing to link to), and noticed you had the Yugoslav forces as 3.600. The English version of Wikipedia only uses commas for number grouping, as this is the form used in English speaking countries. So I've corrected it to 3,600. See MOS:DIGITS if you need any further clarification. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:43, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ActivelyDisinterested I'll just add a |ref as a source there because something doesn't work with the citation Albanian 7 (talk) 15:36, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit reversion

In this edit here, I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.

I provided a brief summary of the problem in the edit summary, which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. This should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.

I do occasionally make mistakes. We get hundreds of reports of potential copyright violations every week, and sometimes there are false positives, for a variety of reasons. (Perhaps the material was moved from another Wikipedia article, or the material was properly licensed but the license information was not obvious, or the material is in the public domain but I didn't realize it was public domain, and there can be other situations generating a report to our Copy Patrol tool that turn out not to be actual copyright violations.) If you think my edit was mistaken, please politely let me know and I will investigate. S Philbrick (Talk) 10:48, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Albanian–Soviet split, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Revisionism.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DS notification: Balkans and Eastern Europe

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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

_signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Xhemati Alban moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Xhemati Alban, is not suitable as written to remain published. While it appears to be notable, it needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. I did this rather than removing the uncited material in the article, which I felt would be more disruptive. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to ask on my talk page. When you have the required sourcing (and every assertion needs a source), and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Or feel free to ping me to take another look.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2023

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at 2001 insurgency in Macedonia. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:21, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the edit warring, which is the primary reason for the block, you also accused other editors of vandalism inappropriately. Vandalism has a very specific definition on Wikipedia--accusing someone of it simply for disagreeing with you about whether specific content should be included is a personal attack. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:24, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rosguill,I don't understand exactly why I was banned for editing because of vandalism, but it's also the case because my edits where I specify sources are simply removed like that, the editors also don't enter any sources and add something completely different to edit Albanian 7 (talk) 00:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You reinstated effectively the same content against objections 4 times in the past day, and more the day before. This is very clearly against the edit warring policy, regardless of whether you are right about the underlying dispute. You need to obtain a consensus on the talk page in favor of the new material before reinstating it. It's good that you've participated on the talk page, but currently it looks like you and other editors have not secured a clear consensus, as multiple editors have raised objections to the suggestion that they haven't withdrawn. Once your block expiries, you are welcome to continue to participate in the discussion, and if the impasse continues there are various dispute resolution methods that experienced editors in that discussion will be able to recommend as needed.

The "vandalism" namecalling is a secondary issue that doesn't rise to the level of a block, particularly since I note now that other editors called you a vandal first. That was wrong and I have warned them as well. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks, but I wanted to ask if you could also check out the talk page regularly in Nato vandalization if we find a solution for this, because even if an editor said we shouldn't change anything in bellugrents for the time being, many are still doing it Albanian 7 (talk) 00:49, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd advise you to avoid referring to such edits as vandalism. It's possible that they may be disruptive, but "vandalism" is typically reserved for edits on the level of putting random swear words or gibberish into articles. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:52, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Albanian Resistance in Yugoslavia for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Albanian Resistance in Yugoslavia, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albanian Resistance in Yugoslavia until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Battle of Košare) for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:09, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So I'll start with the discussion because of the KLA Victory, yes, there was one and the source itself says it, I quote ,"The breaking of the border between Kosovo and Albania on April 9th, 1999, marked not only a moral victory for the KLA" NormalguyfromUK (talk) 00:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed your last three recent edits at Battle of Košare and it turned up that all three were serious cases of source misinterpretation. Therefore, I reverted your edits and explained the problem in the edit summaries ([1], [2], [3]). I blocked you from editing that page. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That has nothing to do with that I used good sources and now we come to the 2nd thing about the volunteers in the source itself said that 24 volunteers died in Koshare and the only known ones were Russian and Ukrainian volunteers who were in Koshare NormalguyfromUK (talk) 13:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Vanjageniye

I wanted to ask when you would finally answer my question, for me the discussion about the Battle of Koshare is still not resolved because you allegedly banned me because of sources that have nothing to do with the topic. NormalguyfromUK (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Albanian–Yugoslav conflict

User:NormalguyfromUK, the so-called "Albanian-Greek border incident" that you keep reinstating, pertains to a POV of Operation Pyrsos that is traced back to Communist Albania; that is why it was merged with Operation Pyrsos. Please stop trying to reinstate an infobox that clearly lacks neutrality; per Template:Infobox military conflict § Usage. Interestingly enough, you were informed about this by another editor on 30 September (here), after you tried to re-create the article. A few days later, on 13 October, you proceeded to coatrack Albanian–Yugoslav conflict § Background instead (diff); it only came to my attention on 6 March.

Vanjagenije, i would appreciate it if you could take a closer look at the aforementioned article. Along with the infobox i mentioned above, User:NormalguyfromUK also added the claim that the Greek operation was supposedly the cause of the Albanian-Yugoslav conflict. This is clearly dubious, since the Greek operation occurred in August 1949, while the Albanian–Yugoslav conflict had already began in 1948. Of course, other than the subsection heading he/she created, there is nothing under it to support that. Even the claim that Yugoslavia supported the operation, which was actually the last stage of the Greek Civil War, has only one inline citation that lacks a page. That reference is Studies in the history of the Greek Civil War, 1945-1949 (1987); i tried to find anything that could support such claims within it, but i couldn't. It appears to be based on improper editorial synthesis, and is clearly off-topic as well. Furthermore, there is also a paper by historian Aleksandar Životić focusing on the topic of borderline tensions between Yugoslavia and Albania during 1948–1954, where he presented a number of related incidents; however, User:NormalguyfromUK who introduced it in the article (diff), appears to have cherrypicked only certain information. Životić's paper is written in Serbian; unfortunately, my understanding is limited. Demetrios1993 (talk) 02:19, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Demetrios First of all, with the borderline tensions, these were a reason for this whole conflict in the Albanian Yugoslavian conflict, the border incidents and planned attacks by the Albanian government and the Yugoslavian. Secondly the Albanian-Greek border incident if you want we can omit that but I don't understand what Operation Pyrsos has to do with the whole thing in many Albanian documentaries and Albanian sources this has been considered the Albanian-Greek border war. NormalguyfromUK (talk) 12:54, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the information about the Greek operation ought to be removed because it had nothing to do with the Albanian-Yugoslav conflict. It was neither the cause of the latter, as you originally claimed, nor have i found any source confirming that Yugoslavia supported it. Since you don't oppose its removal, i will proceed to remove it. As for the "Albanian-Greek border incident", better known in Albanian historiography as the "August 1949 provocations", i already forwarded you to the discussion that led to the merging of the two articles. But in summary, it pertains to "Operation Pyrsos", as it is known in non-Albanian historiography. The actual purpose of the operation was for the Greek governmental forces to eliminate the last strongholds of the Greek communists in Greece. In both cases, the operation began on 2 August 1949, and in the same location; the broader area of Gramos. Furthermore, the reason that the official Albanian narrative of the time didn't mention any Greek communists, probably has to do with the fact that their presence and activity on Albanian territory, as well as the support that they received from the Albanian state, was all part of a secret operation known as Aksioni 10. So, of course they wouldn't admit that the Greek governmental forces were primarily fighting Greek communists; on both Greek and Albanian soil. Last, there is a reason non-Albanian historiography doesn't mention anything about the so-called "August 1949 provocations", while Albanian historiography doesn't mention anything about "Operation Pyrsos"; it's because they are both the same operation, from a different point of view. The official Communist Albanian narrative has affected the historical memory of several generations of Albanians; that's why you read about it in Albanian articles and watch it in Albanian documentaries. Then again, that doesn't mean that what you read and watch from such sources is reliable or neutral. In Turkey, there are also documentaries about the so-called "Cyprus Peace Operation" of 1974, but the rest of the world knows it as the "Turkish invasion of Cyprus". Demetrios1993 (talk) 05:34, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it's 2 different things then why can't we actually make a page about Albanian Greek Border War? It would be fair since there was already Operation Pyrsos why not an Albanian Greek Border War NormalguyfromUK (talk) 14:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also wanted to say that only almost Greek sources were used on the Page Operation Pyrsos, of course also from the West, which also existed with Albanian Greek Border War or not? NormalguyfromUK (talk) 14:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I never claimed they are two different things. I wrote that "they are both the same operation, from a different point of view." In this case, creating another article would be a violation of WP:POVFORK. On your second question, "Operation Pyrsos" includes references from both Greek and non-Greek authors, who by the way happen to be all academics. The only non-Albanian references in the "Albanian-Greek border incident" article, actually referred to Operation Pyrsos in the context of the Greek Civil War, and didn't support the Albanian narrative; in fact, they were added by another Greek editor to counter it. Even most of the Albanian sources that were used, were by non-academic authors. Demetrios1993 (talk) 09:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing

You were blocked from an article for misusing sources and now you added a completely inappropriate citation here that doesn't say what you claim. You continue to mess with infoboxes, creating military conflicts where there aren't, adding inappropriate belligerents and flags to conflicts, along with WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Even after being reverted by editors, you continue to do this. You don't seem to be able to grasp basic concepts of editing Wikipedia or interested in learning and improving.

Please stop and reflect on what you're doing. If you continue, I will have to file a report on WP:ANI. Thanks. Griboski (talk) 18:37, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to have another admin join me for this discussion I have seen you have already gone through many of my edits so 2 you haven't even read the other source of the book and tell me my quotes are unworthy I want me unblocked or us will clarify this with other admins NormalguyfromUK (talk) 18:53, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The source of the book I used even clearly states that the KLA fought against the fascist government of Milosevic I quote: However, it is interesting to recall the claim made by many leaders of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) that their liberation struggle was a continuation of the anti-fascist national liberation struggle. NormalguyfromUK (talk) 18:58, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to revert my edits for no reason like saying Unsourced or unreliable source I will report you to an admin see WP:DONTREVERT! NormalguyfromUK (talk) 19:12, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment demonstrates that you don't understand how sources are supposed to be used. Your quote says that the KLA claimed they were in an anti-fascist struggle. In order to add Anti-fascism as part of the KLA ideology, a reliable source has to say that the KLA's ideology was anti-fascist. That's how it works. Not claims from the KLA themselves or vague claims from politicians about how they engaged in some "anti-fascist liberation". --Griboski (talk) 20:30, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a WP:RS for the 1981 protests as it is a claim from a member of the Hoxha family and contradicts claims by other sources. Web portals and blogs are not reliable sources and academic journals and books take precedence over them. Furthermore, these were clearly civil protests. Yes, troops were called in to quell the protesters but it is a fairly common thing governments do to suppress civil unrest. You can take a look at other examples such as the recent Iranian protests; all those articles use the civil conflict infobox and they are not spammed with flags. --Griboski (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And the East German Uprising of 1953?The army was also used there and even against demonstrators like in the 1981 protests in Kosovo and they used a military info box there, so why can't I use that in the 1981 protests in Kosovo too? NormalguyfromUK (talk) 19:02, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes for the flags! Take a look here on this page 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis Flags were also used here, even in the case of a civil conflict info box! I don't understand why I can't do that then? I found even more pages with infobox civil conflict where flaages are used and WP:MILMOS#FLAGS It says it's not recommended, but it's not forbidden either NormalguyfromUK (talk) 19:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That article is just one example. But you were reverted there by an admin before for the same reasons. By adding Enver Hoxha as a commander, you're completely distorting the situation and contradicting what Mertus, the academic source says, in favor of an opinion piece written by Hoxha's son's wife. It was obviously civil protests and riots carried out by Kosovo Albanians, citizens of Yugoslavia, with some partial connection but mainly moral support from Albania. That is how sources treat it, not as a military conflict. --Griboski (talk) 20:30, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 2023

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Operation Valuable, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your 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 adding incorrect flags and badly sourced figures to India boxes Gugrak (talk) 15:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bad sources? At least I have references while you're removing mine all the time for no reason + the flags match so where's the problem NormalguyfromUK (talk) 16:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. You're misusing sources in the same way that appears to have got you blocked from battle of Kosare. These sources either say something different to what you claim or aren't even about Operation ValuableGugrak (talk) 16:04, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You mean from the admin who banned me who didn't answer 2 of my answers?!And stop coming up with other things we are talking about this topic and not Koshare you didn't even read the sources NormalguyfromUK (talk) 16:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not another thing - you're misusing sources again. I have read them - they don't say what you're claiming they do. Mreover the infobox is supposed to be a pertinent summary of the article. No where does the article have reliable ssourced statements that Communist Poland or Communist Yugoslavia was involved in a CIA/MI6 operation.Gugrak (talk) 16:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no! You really didn't understand where is it stated here that Communist Poland was involved! The Polish Air Force was specified here, ey members of the Polish Air Force, you really didn't understand it, did you? NormalguyfromUK (talk) 16:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~That is not how infoboxes work, and the information is not reliably sourced. Conjecture, assumption etc have no place here. Gugrak (talk) 16:33, 27 March 2023 (UTC)~~ Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don't understand how an info box works, you remove content all the time, and you don't even really know about the topic! NormalguyfromUK (talk) 16:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Go and read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_military_conflict~~

~~Particularly:~~

"Information summarized in an infobox should follow the general guidance for writing a lead section. It should not "make claims" or present material not covered by the article. As with a lead section, there is some discretion in citing information in an infobox. The same guidance should be applied to an infobox as given for citations in a lead section. Information in an infobox must conform with verifiability, point-of-view and other policies.

Information in the infobox should not be "controversial". Refer the reader to an appropriate section in the article or leave the parameter blank rather than make an unsubstantiated or doubtful claim." Gugrak (talk) 16:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

linking this link would also be enough you don't need to copy the whole Text NormalguyfromUK (talk) 16:49, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Operation Valuable, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. You've already been blocked from one page for misusing sources. Stop adding information that is not properly verified Gugrak (talk) 12:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I gave a good source and was banned by an admin who didn't answer 2 of my questions so stop coming up with something else NormalguyfromUK (talk) 12:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The information is very trustworthy, it was published by the CIA itself, where are these not good sources please NormalguyfromUK (talk) 12:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a primary source, that's not WP:RS you need coverage in a relatively secondary source. Even so, it does not say what you're claiming it does. The infobox should also be a summary of the article and there's nothing in the article covering this Gugrak (talk) 12:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to move pages to bad titles contrary to naming conventions or consensus, as you did at Operation Valuable, you may be blocked from editing. Seek a consensus instead of unilaterally moving the page. – robertsky (talk) 17:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Robertsky I already discussed it in the talk page and even explained it 3 times NormalguyfromUK (talk) 17:34, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a consensus among the participant(s). you may wish to use WP:RSPM as the way to gain consensus. – robertsky (talk) 17:37, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you move a page disruptively, as you did at Operation Valuable. – robertsky (talk) 17:35, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023

Please stop your disruptive editing.

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, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Rhodesian Bush War, you may be blocked from editing. BoonDock (talk) 22:17, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo Police–Serbian clashes (2023)

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. A page you created or have recently made significant changes to, Kosovo Police–Serbian clashes (2023), may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for pages, so it has been blanked and redirected to 2022–2023 North Kosovo crisis. Three typical reasons for this are that: (1) the article's subject appears to fail our notability guidelines; (2) the article is unsourced; or (3) the sources used in the article are unreliable. The page's history is preserved and it is possible to restore the article: If you believe that this page should remain included on Wikipedia or that this action was taken in error, then you may revert the edit that blanked and redirected the page.

Wikipedia:Your first article has more information about creating articles, and you may also want to read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you.

The actual reason is that it's better to keep coverage concentrated; this is a notable event, but there isn't much to be said about it, apart from its background and context, and that's exactly what the 2022–2023 North Kosovo crisis article is about. The event is already covered in more detail in that article. —Alalch E. 07:34, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Albanian–Greek Border War, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your 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. You are, once again, adding information that fails verification or misrepresents the sources. Source claims properly with reliable secondary sources. Gugrak (talk) 11:18, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning

Your recent editing history 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; read about 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Ruach Chayim (talk) 16:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted 2 or 3 times and you just edit the edit without it being resolved in the discussion NormalguyfromUK (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2023 (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. Ruach Chayim (talk) 16:40, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A word of advice

When you start a discussion on a talk page regarding a suggested renaming of an article, like you did at Talk:Operation Valuable, it is most unwise to ignore what other contributors say there, and move it anyway. Give the multiple blocks and warnings you seem to have received regarding related topics, you would do well to seek consensus, rather than risk further sanctions against you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NormalguyfromUK. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

--Blablubbs (talk) 09:51, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Guerilla BIA

Hello, NormalguyfromUK. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Guerilla BIA, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 13:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Battle of Vidohovë for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Battle of Vidohovë 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 Vidohovë until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

StephenMacky1 (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Persecution of Greeks in Northern Epirus

Hello, NormalguyfromUK. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Persecution of Greeks in Northern Epirus, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 03:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Battle of Vidohovë for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Battle of Vidohovë 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 Vidohovë (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

Courcelles (talk) 18:18, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:War in Gollak

Hello, NormalguyfromUK. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:War in Gollak, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 13:06, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]