User talk:Vrtleska225

Welcome!

Hello, UDIK12, 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 [[user talk:Knud Winckelmann (talk) 13:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)|my talk page]], or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome![reply]

September 2015

Hello, I'm Seahorseruler. I noticed that you recently removed all content from Edvin Kanka Ćudić with this edit without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, I restored the page's content. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Seahorseruler ^{(Talk Page) (Contribs)} 00:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove an Articles for deletion notice or a comment from an AfD discussion. Seahorseruler ^{(Talk Page) (Contribs)} 01:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with this edit to Edvin Kanka Ćudić. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Seahorseruler ^{(Talk Page) (Contribs)} 01:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Swarm ♠ 04:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Vrtleska225, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Udruženje za društvena istraživanja i komunikacije has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

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 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 designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk 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 can, but please follow the steps in 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. /wiae /tlk 14:19, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Edvin Kanka Cudic

The article Edvin Kanka Cudic has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Has anything happened since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edvin Kanka Ćudić (2nd nomination) ?

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Knud Winckelmann (talk) 06:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Association for Social Research and Communications

The article Association for Social Research and Communications has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Deleted before, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Association for Social Research and Communications (UDIK). Look slike COI?

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Knud Winckelmann (talk) 06:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 2016

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Living monument. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 23:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flag icons

Please, do not add flag icons to infoboxes contrary to MOS:FLAG, like you did here, here and here. I removed them. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

Hi AmandaNP, Sorry, can you unblock me. My account has been blocked for two years. I would be grateful if you would unblock me.Vrtleska225 (talk) 08:47, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to appeal from your main account and read WP:GTAB. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:00, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you AmandaNP, but can you explain to me why I am blocked? Vrtleska225 (talk) 22:41, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AmandaNP, I appeared 5 (five) years after Bosnipedian was blocked. There is no chance that CU can conclude that I am Bosnipedian since we have never edited at the same time and that we have same IP's. CU can not conclude that I am Bosnipedian according to the operating system and the browser, since both of these have significantly changed in five years. We have different areas of interest and different edit pattern. Bosnipedian uses talk pages a lot, me not. Vrtleska225 (talk) 22:22, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So at the time I would have connected you to a previously blocked account that was marked to be them. I connected you back on the same range to the Janurary 2018 incident. While I likely did not connect you all the way back to the master account, I can connect you to at least 4 3 other accounts. Also, if this was all wrong to begin with, why didn't you dispute it when I blocked you over 2 years ago? Furthermore, you may wish to post a formal unblock request after reading WP:GTAB so you can make a proper defense and prove why the block is no longer necessary. This will allow other checkusers to review it. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 01:35, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AmandaNP If I want to dispute something, than I must know what do I have to dispute. Please, tell me, which are those accounts that You connect me to, so I can provide You proper counterarguments? Vrtleska225 (talk) 21:06, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought that was already clear as it's listed in the SPI I linked. I connected you to Tersarius and TheFewr. @Ponyo: connected you to Truebuttrue. That is also by technical evidence alone, not including behavior. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:33, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AmandaNP, Ponyo it is the pattern of behavior of Bosnipedian, and his interest in the subject. Bosnipedian was quarrelsome and often commented on the pages, I didn't do that. None of these users resemble my writing style nor is it my area of interest or writing style. I would ask you to unblock my account, because this is a mistake that was made. It was not me nor did I have anything to do with these users. Vrtleska225 (talk) 07:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From a checkuser standpoint, I would not have called the connection confirmed to the point of adding the findings to the SPI when there was no current case open if I wasn't certain of the connection between the accounts. Based on that, I will not personally be unblocking your account. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for unblock

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).

Vrtleska225 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Two years ago, I was unfairly blocked. There is no chance that CU can conclude that I am Bosnipedian since we have never edited at the same time and that we have same IP's. CU can not conclude that I am Bosnipedian according to the operating system and the browser, since both of these have significantly changed in five years. We have different areas of interest and different edit pattern. Bosnipedian uses talk pages a lot, me not. I understand the concern of the checkuser, but a mistake was made.Vrtleska225 (talk) 00:08, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Checkuser confirmed your connection to three other accounts, yet there is no mention of that issue in the unblock request. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:37, 22 November 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.

Vanjagenije Thanks for the message. They connect me with multiple users, but I have nothing to do with those users. Look at our interests, they are different. Is there any way to determine that it is not me. It really is a mistake. Vrtleska225 (talk) 16:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vanjagenije Does this mean that I can forget that I will ever be unblocked on en.wiki. There is no possibility that you were wrong? Vrtleska225 (talk) 19:42, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can be unblocked if you are fair and explain your connection to other accounts in such a way to convince us that block is not needed any more. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vanjagenije, you have to understand that I am not connected to these users in any way. I understand your concern, but I really haven’t used or made other accounts. On the other hand, the articles I wrote are not even similar to the articles written by those people. They were quarrelsome, I was not. You have to understand, that it is really important to me that you unblock me and give me access to en.wiki. I have nothing else to say, except that a big mistake was made. I have nothing else to offer you but to say that it is not me. Unblock me, and you'll make sure a mistake is made. Thank you. Vrtleska225 (talk) 21:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Vanjagenije and @AmandaNP!

I am from the same region (and few Wikis) as this user and I can assure you that IPs are shared among very many end users here (just a crappy way how providers handle things here), and with Vrtleska225 being in capitol it is even worse then elsewhere. As user did no controversial edits on other Wikipedias I see no basis to still think of them as important for permanent block. Consider to give them a chance to prove in constructive work. --Zblace (talk) 14:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Zblace: We don't take third party appeals. If you wish to encourage Vrtleska to come make an appeal, that's fine. But i'm not going to dig through everything when the user hasn't edited/appealed in over 2 years - basically to have them return but not edit. In case they do, I'm leaving some links for myself here:

-- Amanda (she/her) 15:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AmandaNP understandable...would just love that you consider possibility of them not being the sock, at least considering the thousands of edits on other topics, with other style of communication and being productive and trusted on other wikis. I have full understanding that people with technical skills and focus, dedicated to protect Wikis from numerous trolls, trust statistics and analytics, but...it can be based on wrong assumptions. Thank you for responding so fast! Much appreciated. --Zblace (talk) 16:20, 8 January 2023 (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).

Vrtleska225 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

@Vanjagenije and @AmandaNP, please consider to unblock me. I did not try unblock requests as I failed to find motivation and new arguments, but I contribute a lot to other Wikipedias, so unblocking would mean a lot to me to ease the workflow and contribute more. If you can conditionally unblock me even just for a month and track my wiki work-devices-IPs, so you can see my authentic contributing, that would be much appreciated. Thank you. Vrtleska225 (talk) 17:40, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per below. — Daniel Case (talk) 07:47, 9 January 2023 (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 let me get this straight. You want us to unblock you, yet as of about 2 months ago, you have been still editing logged out against this block? Something you have been doing for years? And there is no mistaking this logged out editing. It's you - for reasons I can't disclose here as I would be giving away your IP. I'll de-prong the CU block by authorizing any admin to review it - because I mean it's been 5 years - but it won't be me to unblock you. Another admin can assess whether the continued logged out editing, the strength of claims in the original data (because I can't go back and review it) , and any behavioral connection. -- Amanda (she/her) 19:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]