User talk:Suksesi

Welcome!

Hello, Suksesi, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Vsmith (talk) 15:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please preview your edits before saving to avoid incomplete words and spacing/punctuation errors as in your edit to Flood myth. Also please read WP:Reliable sources as I doubt that www.ancient-origins.net would qualify. Thank you, Vsmith (talk) 15:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't meet our criteria for sources. More importantly, none of the scientists quoted suggest that their hypotheses back up Noah's Flood. What they suggest is that the events they believe occurred (and which are disputed) are the sources of various flood myths. Not the same thing. Dougweller (talk) 16:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suksesi, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Suksesi! 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! Samwalton9 (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Serbs. 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 that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. 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. --Zoupan 17:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Suksesi. You have new messages at Talk:Serbs#The number of serbs in Kosovo.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Interwiki talkback}} or {{Itb}} template.

--Zoupan 17:49, 21 February 2015 (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) 18:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am so sorry as I did not know that.Thank you for your help ! Zakoni

References needed

Please support your edits to Wikipedia article with WP:reliable sources. Your recent additions to African Great Lakes were not referenced. Material that is not referenced may be challenged and removed. Vsmith (talk) 23:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Suksesi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Requesting an IP address block exemption, because (It says that this IP address or network has been used (not necessarily by you) to disrupt Wikipedia. It has been blocked from editing to prevent further abuse.I have made 127 edits in around 17 days and I think I have not done any disruption to wikipedia.This is from my schools computer and maybe someone else has made disruptive edits by the same range computer or by the same computer. So please help me solving this problem!. Suksesi (talk) 20:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

CU Confirmed sock. Now directly blocked. Elockid ^(Talk) 02:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Suksesi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I think that there is no reason to block me forever as I think I dont have made any damage to Wikipedia.I seriously think that you should give me a chance to contribute to Wikipedia.I think there is no reason to be blocked when I have made only good things here at Wikipedia!If there is no way for me to be unblocked ,please delete my user account and all edits that I have made.I do not want others to see my blocked account.They will think that I am another looser or vandaliser!Actually I dont to look like a sock user when I am not. So please delete my user account!

Decline reason:

There's very little chance of an unblock and accounts cannot be deleted. PhilKnight (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

{{So this is all????????}}

Yes. PhilKnight (talk) 19:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Suksesi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understood his behaviour as ignorant (see Zakoni (talk · contribs) and Suksesi (talk · contribs)), that's why I was frank and asked him.These are the words of user Zoupan.He countinues calling me ignorant.

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I understood his behaviour as ignorant (see Zakoni (talk · contribs) and Suksesi (talk · contribs)), that's why I was frank and asked him.These are the words of user Zoupan.He countinues calling me ignorant. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I understood his behaviour as ignorant (see Zakoni (talk · contribs) and Suksesi (talk · contribs)), that's why I was frank and asked him.These are the words of user Zoupan.He countinues calling me ignorant. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I understood his behaviour as ignorant (see Zakoni (talk · contribs) and Suksesi (talk · contribs)), that's why I was frank and asked him.These are the words of user Zoupan.He countinues calling me ignorant. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}