User talk:Mikola22: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:18, 14 March 2020

Archives (π)


 Archive 1 
 Archive 2

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Mikola22, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to Vlachs in the history of Croatia have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 12:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Original text

Thank you for adding the original non-English text to the note in Banate of Bosnia. Could you please do the same with the rest of the quoted text. --T*U (talk) 12:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TU-nor: Added. Mikola22 (talk) 14:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good! Also the first part, please. --T*U (talk) 14:44, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TU-nor: Added. Mikola22 (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

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 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 ~~~~}}.

TomStar81 (Talk) 00:13, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removing sourced content

Any further removal of sourced content, as seen on Statuta Valachorum will be reason enough for a report and possible blockage. ty Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 21:33, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sadko: Other sources do not mention Serbs so we must respect and those sources as well. So reason for possible blockage it doesn't exist but you can report me. Mikola22 (talk) 21:42, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are cherry picking and searching/favouring sources per your POV, you know why and I as well know why. Any further edits will be closely followed. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 21:44, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sadko: Everything is based on sources and cherry picking is fact i.e. claim that term Vlachs denotes mainly Serbs, where are Croats here, Bulgarians, Balkan Vlachs, Croatian and Bosnian Vlachs, Albanians etc.Mikola22 (talk) 21:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sadko: Sources(boks, historians, historical documents) in Varaždin Generalate and Statuta Valachorum mentione Vlachs without Serbs and with Serbs(in any case mostly are mentioned Vlachs). And I placed Vlachs with the Serbs(I didn't delete anything here). What I needed to do? Otherwise there are mentioned and Hajduks, Uskoks, Croatian serfs etc but I did not place them with Vlachs and Serbs. The only thing I deleted was the term "Vlachs who are mostly Serbs" this requires consensus because this is an area of Varaždin Generalate for wich we have books that speaks about Croatian serfs which cross over to the Vlach side and who become a part of Statuta Valachorum and Vlachs in that area. And also place where it should be spoken about term Vlach is article about Vlachs not in article who talks about Statuta Valachorum. In any case if you find a concrete mistake feel free to expose it on talk page.Mikola22 (talk) 06:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sea is wet, not matter how many sources do not mention the fact.Slatersteven (talk) 09:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: I don't know if i need to clarify something? Article talks about Vlachs statuts (Statuta Valachorum) name says who they are. In that area and Vlach community according to some data and books nearly half of them are Croatian serfs (Croatian parliament at that time discussed that problem) but in the records and books are also mentioned and Uskoks, Hajduks, Vlachs, Rascians etc while the name Vlachs is for them all( claim of historian). The article mentions Serbs but they are least mentioned in that part of Croatia although they are found throughout the whole article. We need to synchronize that with sources otherwise we could rename article to Serbian statuts. Mikola22 (talk) 10:00, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do any of these source actually say that they were not Serbs? Note it does not matter if they were not serbs in 1800 or 1900 or 2000, do any sources say that the use of the word "Vlachs" in connection with the subject of the article did not include Serbs?Slatersteven (talk) 10:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven:I did not delete any information about Serbs but I put Vlachs with them(although I may have put and others which are mentioned in the books) my source does not mention Serbs in that part of Croatia(so they do not specifically say that they are not Serbs, but they say that they are Croats, Hajduks and others). Other source mention Serbs and Vlachs while one Serbian source mentions only Serbs(who allegedly came to Vienna). The most neutral are name Vlach but in the article are mention and Serbs (I do not know how correct is this, considering that and others are mentioned there, Croats etc which are not mentioned in the article. As for the claim that Vlachs in that area are mostly Serbs(slightly older sources) for that must be consensus because they are the least mentioned there, and I deleted those two quotes and left part of those quotes which talking about Vlachs from same sources.Mikola22 (talk) 10:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So no then, you have no source that says (in this context) Vlachs does not refer to Serbs. You have been told to read wp:or before.Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: I forgot to say that this 2019 Hungarian source speaks of the influence of the Serbian Orthodox Church in the 19th century on the basis of which the Orthodox became Serbs and on the basis they became Croats(Catholic churche). So it is assumed that they were not Serbs or Croats at that time. Also the sources which mentione Serbs do not mention that they are not Vlachs so I do not know what that should mean? One source mentions Vlachs, second mentione Serbs, third mentione Vlachs and Uskoks, fourth Serbs and Vlachs etc. No source says Vlachs are not Serbs, Serbs are not Uskoks, Vlachs are not Hajduks etc.Mikola22 (talk) 11:00, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, but we need a source defining what Vlachs in the context of the subject of the article, not the 19thC or the 19th. The subejct of the article might have used Vlachs to mean Serbs, Uskocks or just "that bunch of people who live in that hut over there". Now (apparently) there are sources that say this document referred to Serbs. Do you have a source that says the Statuta Valachorum referred to anyone other than Serbs?Slatersteven (talk) 11:05, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: Now (apparently) there are sources that say this document referred to Serbs. You mean exclusively Serbs? The some sources mentione Serbs and Vlachs, my Hungarian source from 2019 does not mention Serbs as part of Statuta Valachorum. In Croatian historiography I didn't notice that Statuta Valachorum refer to Serbs, the name alone says that this document is about Vlachs (it is mentioned in books and original documents). And I brought that fact from that source into the article. There are other sources but they are mostly from Croatia. In this area is the largest crossing of the Croatian serfs to Vlachs area so it doesn't even make sense to write about Serbs in that area at least as far as Croatian historians are concerned.Mikola22 (talk) 11:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see multiple edit war warnings, a block, I suggest you move into a less controversial topic are that Balkan races before you get a TANB.Slatersteven (talk) 10:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: I only have one block because one editor reported me but he was blocked too. We didn't agree on something and that's it. Multiple edit war warnings put some of editors so I started to put him such alerts on talk page. It is not warning from the admins etc. So everything is fine and don't worryMikola22 (talk) 11:06, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019

Your recent editing history at Rascians 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. Bbb23 (talk) 18:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Rascians. 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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 15:51, 1 January 2020 (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).

Mikola22 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I made an edit because source of citation is RS and explained here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Rascians, and this is stated when I returned citation, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rascians&action=history I think there is no dispute here when everything is clear. Mikola22 (talk) 16:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were blocked for violating WP:EW, yet haven't addressed this in your unblock request. Yamla (talk) 20:53, 1 January 2020 (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.

Mikola22, I've removed the dialog between you and Slatersteven. While blocked, you are permitted only to discuss your block, not discuss the editing of Wikipedia articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:18, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know that and I apologize.Mikola22 (talk) 18:26, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:29, 1 January 2020 (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).

Mikola22 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I think that I have not violated WP:EW and three-revert rule which is evident in the article. [[1]] I made edit because source of citation is RS and explained. [[2]] Because that was reason for deleting(no RS) after explanation I returned the article to its original state so i think there is no reason for blook. I do not know procedure and if that is not enough for appeal I respect the punishment and I will no longer complain, happy new year and greeting.Mikola22 (talk) 21:24, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It appears that the block has expired. SQL ^{Query me!} 15:53, 3 January 2020 (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.

Hi Mikola22. I have noticed your edits and I appreciate your desire as a new editor to add new content to several Balkan articles that need attention. It is a good thing, and I see much potential if you respect the rules and accept advice from experienced editors. In this case, you have been involved in edit warring. One can be blocked for edit warring even if they do not make 4 or more reverts within 24 hours. Edit warring is a behaviour. It means that one shows they will keep reverting on an article. You reverted several times although your addition of new content needs consensus. If you reflect, understand you could have solved the issue without making several reverts within a short period of time, and promise to not continue edit-warring, almost certainly the blocking admin will unblock you. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:04, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mikola22, I warned you above - and you said you understood - that you cannot discuss articles while blocked. I removed the discussion and have revoked your access to this page.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mikola, as I said in my previous comment that is now removed due to your response that touched the content dispute, such content disputes are best discussed on the relevant article's talk page. I expected you would focus on the reason of the block and promise to not get involved in edit warring again. That would have done things much easier for you. Anyways, I am willing to help you since you are a new editor and have already shown a desire to add new content to controversial articles that need attention. You are one of the very rare editors willing and having the guts to do that. If you want some advice or help from me later, you can leave a note on my talk page or ping me somewhere. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:02, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged offence and what not

I do not think that I offended you or anything like that, and that was not my intent. I was talking about the text/possible viewpoint and not you, Mikola22. I am sorry that you feel offended. cheers Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 23:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sadko:I wish you no harm but you have to understand that Vlachs are and Croats, Bosniaks etc. We cannot make Serbs of the Vlachs because then we from Croats, Bosniaks etc make Serbs. Article Slavonia I quote: To replace the fleeing Croats, the Habsburgs called on the Orthodox populations of Bosnia and Serbia to provide military service in the Croatian Military Frontier. Serb migration into this region peaked during the Great Serb Migrations of 1690 and 1737–39. Do you see when the masses of Serbs come to Slavonia and more to the eastern part of Slavonia and towards Vojvodina. As far as Varaždin Generalate and Statuta Valachorum is concerned (1630 and earlier) under Vlach name are everyone there(I've talked about it before). The Serbs are the least mentioned there but the whole article talk about them. Hold such a state of the article is not in good faith. When I suggested to another editor that this we must change for the better you did not in good faith discuss Statuta Valachorum article but you started accusing me of being a Nazi follower. Obviously you want that article to be in that state and you don't want changes but that is not good faith. In any case I hope you will improve for the better and start to respect and Croatian etc history. Mikola22 (talk) 08:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Smiljan. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. 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. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. ——SN 54129 15:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the article according to the sources. Another editor adds some clames that are not in the sources. I suggested that everything be discussed on talk page but nothing specific is mentioned as a problem except some word. Eventually it will be according to the sources so I don't know the motive of another editor to RV article, probably vandalism. Mikola22 (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RfC started

As requested, I have started a RfC at Talk:Josip Runjanin#RfC about ethnicity. --T*U (talk) 08:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.Mikola22 (talk) 12:24, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Partial block from Croatia

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one month from certain areas of the encyclopedia for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.

El_C 21:10, 12 February 2020 (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).

Mikola22 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

If someone persistently puts information which is not in the source and says that knows that and has no dialogue whatsoever on talk page, how is possible that I was punished who move this information which is not in the source? Wikipedia should reward me. Please reward me for this, cancel this block. Thank you.Mikola22 (talk) 21:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You're blocked for edit warring, not for being wrong. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:51, 13 February 2020 (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.

I was blocked also. Being blocked doesn't mean you are a bad person, or that your prosecutor and judge, who punished you, are good people. Keep the faith! We are survivors! Wallie (talk) 14:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wallie: Thanks for the nice words because it means a lot to me considering I'm here alone and it is raining outside. It is not the end of the world if we are blocked because I will try to improve Wikipedia for the better as I can but there is a lot of work and a little understanding. I hope for better days for you and me.Mikola22 (talk) 15:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your continuous work against POV-pushing and blatant vandalism, congratulations! OyMosby (talk) 02:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slavonia

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. 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. --Tuvixer (talk) 16:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sitewide block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 months for edit warring against Nicoljaus while partially blocked (!). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.

El_C 18:20, 20 February 2020 (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).

Mikola22 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I cant remove clame from article "Statuta Valachorum" which has no evidence in the sources and which violates Wikipedia rule(the proof for this is fact that same claim was deleted from the article Croatia) while editor Nicoljaus deletes some information from article Slavonia although that information is from RS and officially under discussion and editor Nicoljaus was informed that he had provide evidence (Use high quality sources preferably from outside of the Balkans, this applies to both of you (Mikola22 and Nicoljaus). Editor Nicoljaus was ignored this. After that he deletes clame from RS as if nothing was happening. It also deletes data from book of the Croatian academician with reason of "wp:verifiability" although there is a book and the page where writes that clame. I have come across dozens of data where the source cannot be reached as well a lot of data which the not have source at all but we should not delete all this data without discussion and consensus. I was forced to revert that parts. If this is not enough for unblock I respect decision and I will not appeal. See you in the spring, thank you.

Mikola22 (talk) 22:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Edit warring is disruptive whether or not you are right regarding the content, and being right is not an excuse. Wikipedia has dispute resolution processes. You haven't used them. Huon (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2020 (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 is asking that their block be reviewed:

Mikola22 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I reviewed Wiki policies on the 3RR, and I concluded that the viable way to solve the ongoing content disputes I am involved in is opening RfCs. I promise I will not revert again in those articles until everything is solved with RfCs. I understand what I have done, what I should have done, what I should do in the future. I should not get involved in edit warring even when I feel sure I am right. Given that blocks on Wikipedia are to prevent damage rather than to punish, I request getting unblocked. Not to mention that the blocking admin, @El C:, has also imposed a 1R restriction on my account, sth that makes my current block redundant. After all, due to the 1R restriction, if I get involved in edit warring again I will be blocked anyway. If this regret could be taken into account I would be grateful if not I understand. I would like to mention once again that there has been a discussion about source^[1] and article should not be edited while source is being discussed, but editor Nicoljaus made edit and here I was wrong, I thought that this edit was not in good faith and I made revert. I didn't use the word apology in my appeal because I thought I was right but I was realistically wrong and now I apologize to Wikipedia administrators and editor Nicoljaus. Mikola22 (talk) 09:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 reviewed Wiki policies on the 3RR, and I concluded that the viable way to solve the ongoing content disputes I am involved in is opening RfCs. I promise I will not revert again in those articles until everything is solved with RfCs. I understand what I have done, what I should have done, what I should do in the future.  I should not get involved in edit warring even when I feel sure I am right. Given that blocks on Wikipedia are to prevent damage rather than to punish, I request getting unblocked. Not to mention that the blocking admin, <span class="template-ping">@[[User:El C|El C]]:</span>, has also imposed a 1R restriction on my account, sth that makes my current block redundant. After all, due to the 1R restriction, if I get involved in edit warring again I will be blocked anyway. If this regret could be taken into account I would be grateful  if not I understand. I would like to mention once again that there has been a discussion about source^[1] and article should not be edited while source is being discussed, but editor Nicoljaus made edit and here I was wrong, I thought that this edit was not in good faith and I made revert. I didn't use the word apology in my appeal because I thought I was right but I was realistically wrong and now I apologize to Wikipedia administrators and editor Nicoljaus. [[User:Mikola22|Mikola22]] ([[User talk:Mikola22#top|talk]]) 09:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC) |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 reviewed Wiki policies on the 3RR, and I concluded that the viable way to solve the ongoing content disputes I am involved in is opening RfCs. I promise I will not revert again in those articles until everything is solved with RfCs. I understand what I have done, what I should have done, what I should do in the future.  I should not get involved in edit warring even when I feel sure I am right. Given that blocks on Wikipedia are to prevent damage rather than to punish, I request getting unblocked. Not to mention that the blocking admin, <span class="template-ping">@[[User:El C|El C]]:</span>, has also imposed a 1R restriction on my account, sth that makes my current block redundant. After all, due to the 1R restriction, if I get involved in edit warring again I will be blocked anyway. If this regret could be taken into account I would be grateful  if not I understand. I would like to mention once again that there has been a discussion about source^[1] and article should not be edited while source is being discussed, but editor Nicoljaus made edit and here I was wrong, I thought that this edit was not in good faith and I made revert. I didn't use the word apology in my appeal because I thought I was right but I was realistically wrong and now I apologize to Wikipedia administrators and editor Nicoljaus. [[User:Mikola22|Mikola22]] ([[User talk:Mikola22#top|talk]]) 09:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC) |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 reviewed Wiki policies on the 3RR, and I concluded that the viable way to solve the ongoing content disputes I am involved in is opening RfCs. I promise I will not revert again in those articles until everything is solved with RfCs. I understand what I have done, what I should have done, what I should do in the future.  I should not get involved in edit warring even when I feel sure I am right. Given that blocks on Wikipedia are to prevent damage rather than to punish, I request getting unblocked. Not to mention that the blocking admin, <span class="template-ping">@[[User:El C|El C]]:</span>, has also imposed a 1R restriction on my account, sth that makes my current block redundant. After all, due to the 1R restriction, if I get involved in edit warring again I will be blocked anyway. If this regret could be taken into account I would be grateful  if not I understand. I would like to mention once again that there has been a discussion about source^[1] and article should not be edited while source is being discussed, but editor Nicoljaus made edit and here I was wrong, I thought that this edit was not in good faith and I made revert. I didn't use the word apology in my appeal because I thought I was right but I was realistically wrong and now I apologize to Wikipedia administrators and editor Nicoljaus. [[User:Mikola22|Mikola22]] ([[User talk:Mikola22#top|talk]]) 09:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

@El C: If you agree, I am willing to partially unblock this user (WP:PB), so that they can edit all namespaces except articles. That way, they can seek dispute resolution without making further disruption to the articles themselves. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that the user is on Wikipedia to advance fringe content, but sure, go for it. Still, it does feel slightly off that the one user's unblock request is answered (be it in the affirmative or in the negative), while their counterpart's unblock request remains unanswered. That does not seem right. El_C 14:17, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration sanction

Upon your return to editing, you will be subject to a 1RR restriction on all articles that fall under the topic of Eastern Europe or the Balkans, broadly construed. The duration I fixed to this restriction is indefinite, however, you may appeal it no less than six months after it takes effect (2 months from now). El_C 18:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

^ {No, you will not get carte-blanche for use of low-profile regional journal in in an article concerning ethno-nationalistic minefield like the history of the Balkans. Use high quality sources preferably from outside of the Balkans, this applies to both of you (Mikola22 and Nicoljaus). Pavlor (talk) 13:17, 19 February 2020} https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_285#%22The_Vlach_law_and_its_comparison_to_the_privileges_of_Hungarian_brigands%22

[1] {No, you will not get carte-blanche for use of low-profile regional journal in in an article concerning ethno-nationalistic minefield like the history of the Balkans. Use high quality sources preferably from outside of the Balkans, this applies to both of you (Mikola22 and Nicoljaus). Pavlor (talk) 13:17, 19 February 2020} https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_285#%22The_Vlach_law_and_its_comparison_to_the_privileges_of_Hungarian_brigands%22

[1]

@@ Line 140: / Line 140: @@
 {{unblock |I reviewed Wiki policies on the 3RR, and I concluded that the viable way to solve the ongoing content disputes I am involved in is opening RfCs. I promise I will not revert again in those articles until everything is solved with RfCs. I understand what I have done, what I should have done, what I should do in the future.  I should not get involved in edit warring even when I feel sure I am right. Given that blocks on Wikipedia are to prevent damage rather than to punish, I request getting unblocked. Not to mention that the blocking admin, {{ping|El C}}, has also imposed a 1R restriction on my account, sth that makes my current block redundant. After all, due to the 1R restriction, if I get involved in edit warring again I will be blocked anyway. If this regret could be taken into account I would be grateful  if not I understand. I would like to mention once again that there has been a discussion about source<ref>{No, you will not get carte-blanche for use of low-profile regional journal in in an article concerning ethno-nationalistic minefield like the history of the Balkans. Use high quality sources preferably from outside of the Balkans, this applies to both of you (Mikola22 and Nicoljaus). Pavlor (talk) 13:17, 19 February 2020} https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_285#%22The_Vlach_law_and_its_comparison_to_the_privileges_of_Hungarian_brigands%22</ref> and article should not be edited while source is being discussed, but editor Nicoljaus made edit and here I was wrong, I thought that this edit was not in good faith and I made revert. I didn't use the word apology in my appeal because I thought I was right but I was realistically wrong and now I apologize to Wikipedia administrators and editor Nicoljaus. [[User:Mikola22|Mikola22]] ([[User talk:Mikola22#top|talk]]) 09:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC)}}
 *{{ping|El_C}} If you agree, I am willing to partially unblock this user ([[WP:PB]]), so that they can edit all namespaces except articles. That way, they can seek dispute resolution without making further disruption to the articles themselves. '''[[User:Vanjagenije|<span style="color:#008B8B;">Vanjagenije</span>]] [[User talk:Vanjagenije|<span style="color: #F4A460;">(talk)</span>]]''' 11:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
+:*My concern is that the user is on Wikipedia to advance [[WP:FRINGE|fringe]] content, but sure, go for it. Still, it does feel slightly off that the one user's unblock request is answered (be it in the affirmative or in the negative), while their counterpart's [[User_talk:Nicoljaus#Unblock_request_2|unblock request]] remains unanswered. That does not seem right. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 14:17, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 ==Arbitration sanction==