User talk:Matcheeks

Welcome!

Hello, Matcheeks, 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 complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

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 ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! MPS1992 (talk) 22:44, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019

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.

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.

Icewhiz (talk) 09:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC) [reply]

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 living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

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.

Icewhiz (talk) 10:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ewa Kurek

Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. In particular, diff, added information that wasn't in the supposedly cited sources as well as added sources written a decade or so (in the early 40s) prior to Kurek being born (in 1951). Icewhiz (talk) 09:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019

Hello, I'm GRuban. I noticed that you recently removed content from Ewa Kurek without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please don't remove cited information, and replace it with uncited information. GRuban (talk) 12:39, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 2019

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 BRD 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.Icewhiz (talk) 14:04, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:25, 1 April 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hi, I am new to Wikipedia - that's not an excuse. My bad, I should have provided more references for the edits that I have been making, so that they can be easily checked. Frankly, I should have learned more about about rules Wikipedia holds. I am a great asset to Wikipeida because of my vivid interest in Polish history, especially 20th century, where I can contribute most. Started mildly with minor contributions but have plans of translating more sources from Polish Wikipedia. Surely community will benefit of having me on board and let that single slip of mine not make you loose such a precious asset as I am. I am definitely here to contribute. Unsurprisingly most Polish History sources are in Polish, not in English or any other language and this where my role fits in. That's why I should be unblocked.

Decline reason:

In examining your edits, I don't feel comfortable unblocking you without you agreeing to a topic ban from Polish-Jewish history, and knowing what you would edit about instead. I am declining this request; you are free to make another to either convince someone to unblock you without agreeing to that condition, or to accept it. 331dot (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

Thanks 331dot (talk · contribs) for a swift response. My understanding is that the ban was for the form and and not for the content of my contributions, that is for breaking the three reverts rule. The information that was provided by me was missing references, easy to find in Polish, not so easy in English. Just that. I can promise that all the future edits will have more than enough references to back the edits up. That's it. With that said, pretty much there is no reason to stay away from any subject or topic. Correct? It would be against the very core of the Wikipedia spirit to prevent information coming from one source, that is Polish sources. See, unsurprisingly Polish history on Polish Wikipedia is a lot richer than Polish history on English Wikipedia. I admit that breaking the three-reverts rule was a no-no thing. True. It happened. However, assuming all the addition and edits to the Polish history page are back up with sources and references there is no logical reason to ban me from Polish history subjects? Anyway, I am here to contribute. Lots of sources on Polish Wiki could be translated or added to English Wiki. And that's where I see my role could fit in. And this is where my interests are too.

Decline reason:

As mentioned by 331dot above, and narrowing it further for your benefit, you can be unblocked if you agree to a 6-month topic ban (with first appeal post 3 months of constructive editing; post 6 months you can start editing without asking permission) from editing all Polish-Jewish articles broadly construed (you can still participate discussing the articles in the talk pages or in other discussions like deletion discussions; but you cannot edit any related articles for 6 months). Lourdes 02:57, 15 April 2019 (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.