User talk:Rjecina

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Please post new messages to the bottom of my talk page. I will respond at your talk page unless you request otherwise. Thank you.

Design copied from User:Duja.
Archive
Archives
  1. 21 February 2005 – 31 May 2007
  2. 1 June 2007 – 31 Jully 2007
  3. 1 August 2007 – 2 January 2008
  4. 2 January 2008 – 2 January 2009


Welcome back[edit]

Just welcoming you back to wikipedia. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 17:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks --Rjecina (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

yo yo[edit]

Pozdravljajus. :) (LAz17 (talk) 16:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)).

Speedy deletion nomination of Glenn Henry[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on Glenn Henry requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. — Zhernovoi (talk) 23:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Re-blocked[edit]

Rjecina, when you were banned last year (here), the community consensus was actually for an indefinite ban. I went out on a limb in your favour when I chose to implement the ban decision merely through a one-year block [1], giving you a chance to come back. However, that was of course linked with the expectation that you would change your editing if you chose to come back. You would of course also still be under all the editing restrictions that were imposed on you prior to your ban.

Unfortunately, seeing the (few) edits you have made since returning, there is no improvement at all. You are right back with the same disruptive pattern. Making an unexplained POV edit on exactly the same issue you were blocked over last year [2], as the first thing on expiry of your block. Again no meaningful edit summary. Again in broken English, and no visible effort to get your grammar right at last. And then this [3] incomprehensible rant on a talk page.

Unfortunately, this leaves me no hope you will become a constructive contributor yet. On the basis of the ban decision from last year, which is still valid, I am therefore re-blocking you. This time it's indef. If you want to return, you will first have some explaining to do about how you plan to improve your editing. Fut.Perf. 15:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It is possible that we are having small mistake with this ban4life ?
My thinking is that this edit summary (bye) has been OK, because that is my last edit on english wikipedia.
About my broken english [4] it is possible only to say that interwiki spammer has accepted my incomprehensible rant and ended his spamming on sh wikipedia. You can read his statement:"Rijecina2: Don´t worry this will notbe a wiki problem. This discussion will help solve existing problems" [5]. Example of July spamiming on sh wikipedia you can look in this link.
When this Juli it has become clear that I will become administrator on sh wikipedia I have started to write warnings on others wikipedia about interwiki spam or vandal problems (interwiki warning example on bosnian wiki from 9 August and I will continue to do this in the future. For me it is hard to imagine that this is disruptive conduct or that administrators (which I am on sh wiki) on other wiki must know good english to write interwiki warning on english wikipedia ?
My proposition is to change definition of this ban4life in:
"Requested by the user on sh.wikipedia as an unwanted SUL local account"
and remove ban4life from user:Rjecina2 on english wikipedia so that I can contact administrators or vandals on english wiki about "small" interwiki problems on sh wiki which have started on english wiki--Rjecina (talk) 09:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Rjecina (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

Reasons are writen on 23 August 2010, but Future Perfect is not responding (even on emails...). I can now add new reasons (meta, interwiki problems with sh wiki), but I do not see reasons. This account will be active (or user:Rjecina2) only for interwiki problems between english and sh wikipedia

Decline reason:

sh.WP will just have to find someone else to deal with interwiki issues, this reasoning does not adequately address the reasons for your block here. Being an admin on another project is in no way a free pass to do anything in particular here, and there is no good reason to unblock your alternate account as it is still you, and there was in fact strong support for a ban at ANI. I suggest that if you want to pursue this further you contact WP:BASC by email. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and 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.

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Rjecina (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

I am blocked because of "disruptive conduct has resumed". Is the writing warnings to wikipedia users to end the interwiki vandalism on sh Wikipedia Disruptive conduct? If answer is yes then I am guilty, because this is reason behind ban (my only edit between april and september)

Decline reason:

And that shows you really don't get why you were blocked and why your behaviour is a problem here. Spartaz Humbug! 19:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and 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.

Nomination of Michael Kantakouzenos (died 1316) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Michael Kantakouzenos (died 1316) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Kantakouzenos (died 1316) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Constantine 16:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)