User talk:Wikipeacekeeper

February 2010

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. NJA (t/c) 08:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, which one are you talking about? Wikipeacekeeper (talk) 08:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet war in Afghanistan. Also, Operation Storm, among the edits that likely need discussed, you also created a typo in the word 'language'. NJA (t/c) 08:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the typo was because I did a mass revert. The stuff I removed was badly typed out with all kinds of typos and posted by an anonymous IP address who was blatantly POV pushing. Aout the Afghan war, they beat the Russians. Wikipeacekeeper (talk) 08:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, avoid peacock terms in Soviet war in Afghanistan. Engaging in edits wars vs discussion is disruptive and may end up in you being blocked. NJA (t/c) 08:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, what's a "peacock" term? And why is it one? Wikipeacekeeper (talk)

The term as used on Wikipedia is defined in more detail at Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms. Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 09:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

aaaah got you now. So we tell the story as is but we use more "official" language. Got ya now. Thanks. Wikipeacekeeper (talk) 09:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Non-Serbs

The article Non-Serbs has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Personal essay on Yugoslavian history per WP:NOT#ESSAY, large amounts of WP:SYNTHESIS and POV per WP:NPOV and WP:NOR.

While all 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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. MuffledThud (talk) 10:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No chance. It has been sourced. It has been edited a few times since you claimed WP:OR. Every source says non-Serb. If it a bit bad in style, alter it but don't delete it. Wikipeacekeeper (talk) 10:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Non-Serbs

I have nominated Non-Serbs, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-Serbs. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. MuffledThud (talk) 10:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 Non-Serbs. 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. MuffledThud (talk) 10:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK it can stay. Wikipeacekeeper (talk) 10:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wikipeacekeeper. You have new messages at MuffledThud's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Welcome, and thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia. However, this is an encyclopedia and the articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits, as you did to Talk:Rebecca Adlington. Readers looking for accurate information will not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, try the sandbox, where you can write practically anything you want. This joke [1] is not good as it is insulting to a living person, even though it was posted on the talkpage rather than the article. Polargeo (talk) 14:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Croats, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Polargeo (talk) 14:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a propaganda tool for your own views

Please do not use wikipedia as a propaganda tool. See WP:NPOV. Polargeo (talk) 14:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Račak massacre, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You made several POV edits not backed up by the sources Polargeo (talk) 14:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Balkans Sanctions

In a 2007 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user editing Balkans-related articles in a disruptive way. If you engage in further inappropriate behaviour in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. Thank you. Polargeo (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What does that mean? Tell me my conditions. Wikipeacekeeper (talk) 15:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]