User talk:Milos zankov

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Milos zankov! Thank you for your contributions. I am Peacemaker67 and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 21:57, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

G'day

G'day Milos. I'm afraid you have completely misunderstood WP guidelines here. Quotations are quotations, paraphrasing is paraphrasing. Summarising a source is something else. They are all completely different things, BTW. Magnum Crimen is a controversial work, all material in its article should be from third party reliable sources, unless it is a direct quote from the book that has been mentioned by a third party reliable source. Please follow WP guidelines. Thanks. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

complaints

Hi there. User:Timbouctou notified me that they were having a problem at the Magnum Crimen article, and I see that this started with your contributions. First and foremost, I noticed that you failed to assume good faith in several of these interactions with other users. This has compounded all other apparent errors. Please remember to do so in the future, because it's essential for the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. In general, when several more experienced users tell you you've made mistakes, it's best to take a step back and rethink what you were doing. Thanks. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You misread another user's turn of phrase as some sort of an insult, and even after they've told you they didn't meant it as an insult, you persisted with that meaningless accusation more than once. I tried to phrase my message above in the most lenient way possible, because we must not bite the newbies, but that won't make much sense if you keep on acting like this. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've apparently completely ignored all of this, and continued to disrupt Wikipedia by acting belligerently towards other editors acting in good faith, edit warring, ignoring copyright issues, etc. I'm not sure if this account is yet another sockpuppet of User:Velebit or what, but in any event, I'm issuing a final warning.

Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

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. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
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.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing.

--Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Magnum Crimen

Please familiarize yourself with the way discussions are led on Wikipedia. Comments are meant to be made chronologically, one below the other, each time signed and timestamped with your signature. You cannot endlessly edit and expand your previous comments nor are you allowed to group what other people are saying in dedicated subsections. This is crucial for your career on Wikipedia because if you are incapable of discussing, you will most likely be ignored and/or eventually blocked from editing. Timbouctou (talk) 11:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Next time try reading the big orange box on top of my talk page before replying.Timbouctou (talk) 14:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tesla

Greatings Milos Zankov. Don't take me wrong but I will not support you at that discussion despite the obvious fact that his father was a SOC priest. The problem is that the article has experienced in the past several nationalistic attempts to promote more Serbia or Croatia with more mentions of one or another. The article has archived some balance by now, and it suffers opposition from neutral editors with proposals that can break that balance. So, the fundamental aspects are there, he was Serbian inventor, had Serbian parents, father was Orthodox priest, they came from Serbia, he memorized Serbian epic poems. Croats gave up the mention of the Croatian Military Frontier at the birthplace, and Serbs gave up the mention of Serbian OC when mentioning his father. Its a balance cause we cannot glutter the text with mentions of Serbs and Croats every 2 words. Besidies, if you look in the articles of people worldwide, you will see that its really not common to go into detail what national church someone belonged, that is a bit specifically Balkanic way of putting it. You will actually very rarely see someone writing for someone that was Spanish Catholic priest, or American Protestant, or English Anglican... Directors proposal is obviously good because sends the reader to a correct and specific article within the Orthodox church, but besides that Orthodox priest by now seems enough in that context in that paragraph. FkpCascais (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Metropolitanate of Karlovci, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Charles VI, Joseph II and Joseph I. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COPYVIO

As I said at ANI, WP:COPYVIO is a serious thing and you need to address the concerns instead of just adding the content back to Magnum Crimen. If you continue to add content which may violate copyright, it's likely you will be blocked. If you think that copyright is not a concern because of attribution or because only one or two sentences were used of a 4 page review, you're mistaken. This would only apply for a direct quote (and the quote would have to be sufficiently relevant for inclusion). Nil Einne (talk) 20:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015

Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

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. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
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.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. False claims of vandalism. Drmies (talk) 03:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

The Yugoslav Auschwitz and the Vatican

added links pointing to English, Partisan, Serbian and Yugoslav

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Michelle Ridomi (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Mike V • Talk 23:48, 25 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).

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

Request reason:

The block is not based on any evidence. I did not break a single Wikipedia rule. My work was purely academic and productive.

Decline reason:

Correct... as in you did not break a single rule; you broke two: Using multiple accounts and edit warring. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:10, 26 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).

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

Request reason:

Previous review is cynical and false: battling vandalism is not edit warring, there was no a single proof showing use of multiple accounts

Decline reason:

I suggest you provide diffs showing that you were reverting vandalism. PhilKnight (talk) 17:34, 7 March 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.