::But I don't think that's very helpful. For example, you {{diff|Millet (Ottoman Empire)|830273000|830126743|added the Frazee book}} to several articles. It's definitely germane to that one article but it's not listed in the citations. When you drop a citation like that across a bunch of articles at once, it looks more like you're advertising for the author than trying to help readers find material. If you really wanted to better the article, you could improve the text using books like that one as [[WP:IC|in-line citations]]. I'd prefer you avoid doing what you're doing. <span class="nowrap" style="font-family:copperplate gothic light;">[[User:Chris troutman|<span style="color:#345">Chris Troutman</span>]] ([[User talk:Chris troutman|<span style="color:#345">talk</span>]])</span> 20:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
::But I don't think that's very helpful. For example, you {{diff|Millet (Ottoman Empire)|830273000|830126743|added the Frazee book}} to several articles. It's definitely germane to that one article but it's not listed in the citations. When you drop a citation like that across a bunch of articles at once, it looks more like you're advertising for the author than trying to help readers find material. If you really wanted to better the article, you could improve the text using books like that one as [[WP:IC|in-line citations]]. I'd prefer you avoid doing what you're doing. <span class="nowrap" style="font-family:copperplate gothic light;">[[User:Chris troutman|<span style="color:#345">Chris Troutman</span>]] ([[User talk:Chris troutman|<span style="color:#345">talk</span>]])</span> 20:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Chris troutman}}, I understand what you are saying, but I was just adding relevant book to related articles, nothing else. [[User:Sorabino|Sorabino]] ([[User talk:Sorabino#top|talk]]) 20:56, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Chris troutman}}, I understand what you are saying, but I was just adding relevant book to related articles, nothing else. [[User:Sorabino|Sorabino]] ([[User talk:Sorabino#top|talk]]) 20:56, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
== March 2018 ==
<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px">[[File:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|40px|left|alt=Stop icon with clock]]<div style="margin-left:45px">You have been '''[[WP:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing for a period of '''1 week''' for canvassing ([https://sr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%A0%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%80_%D1%81%D0%B0_%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC:PetarM&diff=prev&oldid=19293012]). You were already warned here that canvassing is not allowed, but you've did it again. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to [[WP:Five pillars|make useful contributions]]. </div><div style="margin-left:45px">If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the [[WP:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]], then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}. '''[[User:Vanjagenije|<span style="color:#008B8B;">Vanjagenije</span>]] [[User talk:Vanjagenije|<span style="color: #F4A460;">(talk)</span>]]''' 17:20, 18 March 2018 (UTC)</div></div><!-- Template:uw-block -->
Revision as of 17:20, 18 March 2018
Sorabino, you are invited to the Teahouse!
Hi Sorabino! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Osarius (talk).
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eparchy of Banat, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Turks. 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.
Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from 2004 unrest in Kosovo into Persecution of Christians. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 03:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for June 14
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.
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.
In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Jenks24 (talk) 15:34, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I should of use the "move" command for that correction.
Correction
Thanks, I should of use the "move" command for that correction.
I corrected all of the links.
What are you doing?
What are you doing? First, cut-and-paste move is completely disastrous tool (because of the manipluation of page history). Secondly, for instance, there was a successful move request in September 2012. So, if you do not agree with the current title of the article, you should initiate a move request. --Norden1990 (talk) 22:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for June 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ban (title), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Banovina. 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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Priboj, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lim. 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.
I created that list in its present complete form on Saint Sava as you can see from the history of that page, and I transferred the same list to relevant pages. Why do you think that page Kingdom of Serbia (medieval) should not have information about its main religious institutions. You have some agenda here, thats clear. Sorabino (talk) 02:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What is my agenda? I do not think that an article on the Serbian state active in the period of 1217–1346 should have such a detailed list about the 1219–1235 ecclessiastical division of the Serbian Orthodox Church. You copy-pasted the exact same list to 5 articles. Leave that information on the relevant pages.--Zoupan03:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You answer clearly shows that you have no idea what are you talking about. Its not just "1219-1235" ! All of those eparhies existed during entire period 1219-1346 and their existence and entire ecclesiastical order of thet time is very relevant for understanding the history of medieval Kingdom of Serbia, that is clear as day, and you are wrong.Sorabino (talk) 03:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you have no idea what you're talking about. By copy-pasting that same information to five independent articles, it is clear that you yourself don't know what that information should signify. very relevant for understanding the history of medieval Kingdom of Serbia, that is clear as day Eh, no? Here, you pasted it into the Reign of Stefan-section. Here, you pasted it in the middle of the Nemanjić dynasty-section. Are you aware of the fact that the eparchy structures of 1219–1235 and, let's say, 1321, were not the same. Should we past bulleted lists of such ecclessiastical overviews/changes/whatever to every "relevant" (meaning, not-so) articles? Please have some common sense.--Zoupan03:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course that during time new eparchies were created or added to Serbian Archbishopric, church structure was developing, but all of the old eparchies remained functioning during entire time. You are now trying to change the subject here because you do not have arguments for your actions. Sorabino (talk) 03:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Summary: You do not have an argument for the inclusion of said list at these broader articles. You are still missing the point.--Zoupan03:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Eparchy of Lipljan
Eparchy of Lipljan is a copy of Eparchy of Raška and Prizren. Why create an exact copy instead of adding independent information, if you have such, to the history section? The Eparchy of Lipljan is a defunct (former) eparchy, its jurisdiction part of the Eparchy of Raška and Prizren. The history section at the latter treats the history of the Eparchy of Ras, and Prizren. It would be best to merge these two articles.--Zoupan02:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who is contributing to Wikipedia in good faith would not make those actions you did today regarding page Eparchy of Lipljan]. I created that page today and I am still working on it. And what did you do? Instead of asking me for my intentions with this page, you erased all pictures from the page (and all of them are relevant to history of the eparchy) and then you started the procedure for killing the page! Your agenda is clear as a day! Sorabino (talk) 03:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Its not "the exact copy" that is also clear, I am just using the same structure for adding new data - and you are trying to stop me at the very beginning of my work / I started that page today, few hours ago !!! and you are trying to kill it right away, for some reason that is known only to you. Sorabino (talk) 03:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I simply wanted to notice you and initiate a discussion. Creating an article and copy-pasting are not the same. I am not trying to stop you. Good luck with your article.--Zoupan03:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for July 10
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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Metropolitanate of Karlovci, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kostajnica. 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.
I just removed a bunch of prod tags that you placed on redirects. At WP:PROD it says the prod policy does not apply to redirects, so please don't place prod tags on redirects. Instead, please use WP:RFD. Thanks. Calathan (talk) 18:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorabino, you aren't nominating those for RFD correctly. You are putting the text that is supposed to go onto the RFD page onto the redirects themselves. Please stop what you are doing and re-read WP:RFD#HOWTO. Part 1 of that section is about what you do on the redirect page itself, while part 2 is for the RFD page. Calathan (talk) 21:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for July 26
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.
—==Disambiguation link notification for August 6==
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Archbishopric of Belgrade and Karlovci, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Braničevo. 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.
Could you please take a look at the main page of this website and also this page. Let me know if you encounter any pop-up errors on those pages such as "Error: CustomError: Error in protected function: vb"? (btw, be rest assured that are no viruses or malware). --JackonLee54 (talk) 11:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Casting aspersions
Hello,
You notified me in this (diff) comment of yours which violates several principles passed by the Arbitration Committee and at least one wikipedia guideline (WP:TPG). Concerns about another editors' conduct, if they cannot be resolved directly with the other users involved, should be brought up in the appropriate forums with evidence, if at all.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 04:44, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Antidiskriminator: Thank you for your message. I guess that you will also be interested to know that user Zoupan has just accused me of having "conspiracy theories" and he did that on a talk page of user Vanjagenije, who is also an administrator: (diff) So, be free to react on that too. Sorabino (talk) 02:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Autonomy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Church of Rome. 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.
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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eparchy of Niš, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ottoman. 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.
Hello, Sorabino. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
75 years since Norway's largest massacre, mostly of Serbs
Hi, I see that you are a member of the wiki project Serbia. I am working on the Beisfjord massacre. There is a Norwegian user taking issue with the article. The person is vandalizing the article and claiming (without substantiation) that a sockpuppet from July 2016 is still doing stuff to the article. Please discuss with your other members at Serbia project, and evaluate if my version [1] is more acceptable than his version. (Here is the diff from his default version [2], to my present version.) Perhaps you or other users have communication skills that can make him stop his present activities on the article. To my knowledge he has never added anything to the article, from what I can see from the history. 176.11.181.248 (talk) 06:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eastern Catholic Churches, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Croatian Catholic Diocese of Križevci. 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.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Boleyn (talk) 08:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation pages and redirects
Hi! I appreciate the spirit and well-meaning intention, but you have fallen into the trap of trying to disambiguate things where there is nothing to disambiguate. If you try to cover all possible variations of "X-denomination Y-diocese of Z-place", you will undoubtedly also invent names that are simply never used. These are not only redundant, but misleading, because once they are on Wikipedia, there is always someone who will consider them to be true and factual. Constantine ✍ 19:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is OK, I understand, but was there a problem with terms "Estern Othodox" - "Greek Orthodox" since eastern-orthodox patriarchates of Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria are in fact predominantly Greek, or something else was not right? Sorabino (talk) 19:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, the problem was not with the denomination. You are right that for all intents and purposes, "Eastern Orthodox" equals "Greek Orthodox". The problem lies elsewhere: One, you have created terms that are simply never used. For instance, nobody refers to the Latin Patriarchate of Constantinople as the "Roman Catholic Archbishopric of Constantinople". Whenever one talks of the "Archbishop of Constantinople", that is usually, in Western languages at least, the (Eastern Orthodox) Ecumenical Patriarch. So creating any disambiguation pages and redirects with all of these terms is redundant, and even misleading for those who don't know, but may stumble upon them. Secondly, by creating the disambiguation pages in the first place, you place the Ecumenical Patriarch as "Archbishop of Constantinople" on equal footing in terms of importance with the Latin and Armenian patriarchs. While the latter are important, this is one case where the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the title "Archbishop of Constantinople" is overwhelmingly clear. The situation should be dealt with with a hatnote at the Ecumenical Patriarchate's page. This was missing, for some reason, I have now added it. Constantine ✍ 20:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I understand your point now. I saw earlier that in various articles term "Archbishop of Constantinople" was used loosely and without proper clarification that it is an eastern orthodox ecclesiastical institution, and therefore I made "Estern Othodox" and "Greek Orthodox" variants. Since patriarchal titles were officially introduced after 451, until then all major sees were just archbishoprics, or metropolitanates. But that is not of crucial importance, for this issue. So, what is yours proposal for the solution? Sorabino (talk) 20:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting ISBNs and changing section headings
G'day. You have recently made several edits to articles changing the formatting of references which included deleting the ISBNs, and have also changed the section headings in several articles. Per MOS:FNNR, "Sources" is potentially confusing. Generally, once established, section headings for the References sections of article should be left alone unless there is a consensus to change them. They are not something you change because you prefer them one way or another. And deleting ISBNs isn't useful. I've reverted a few of them, but I suggest you stop this activity, it isn't contributing to the encyclopaedia. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And I reverted a couple more. ISBNs should definitely not be deleted, and if you reformat the code into a single line, either do it for entire bibliography or leave it alone. No such user (talk) 10:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw your warnings and I am surprised by your comments since I added just one historical scientific work of late Serbian historian, university professor Sima Ćirković who was a well known scholar and member of several academic institutions in Europe. How can adding such references be qualified in a the way you did? Please, take a look at the source I added: Ćirković, Sima (2004). The Serbs. Malden: Blackwell Publishing. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help). That is relevant scholarly material, by all standards. Sorabino (talk) 14:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republic of Serbia (disambiguation) 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. Vanjagenije(talk)21:04, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalenciaᐐT₳LKᐬ19:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Catholicism (term)
Hello Sorabino,
I wanted to make you aware of discussions concerning the page move discussion you recently participated in at Catholicism (term):
FYI that I did not realize you were not a native speaker yourself when I posted the clarification of usage of the term rite on WT:CATHOLIC. We've had a decent amount of non-native speakers weighing in on the Catholic naming conventions, some of whom have asked for language clarifications. I was just trying to make sure everyone was aware of the vocabulary being used, not critiquing you :) TonyBallioni (talk) 14:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!
ANI Experiences survey
Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.
The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:
Hello, Sorabino. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
You have clearly misunderstood the concept of both redirects (as already pointed out to you) and [now] disambiguation pages. One example is Central Serbia (disambiguation), which lists historical Serbian principalities — how exactly are these identified as Central Serbia? In historiography they are certainly not. The history section at Central Serbia has information on those subjects anyway. So... Please explain how you did come up with Central Serbian Principality of Raška? Please stop these OR edits as they do not help the encyclopaedia whatsoever.--Zoupan23:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is OR and the terminology. More examples are "Vardaskan language" and "Inner Serbian Principality in the Early Middle Ages" (wow.), which is just... terrible. The latter is not used as an identifier in historiography nor is it a plausible search (obviously, "central Serbian principality" and "inner Serbian principality" have 0 hits at Gbooks). It is your own creation (Original Research). Next, the word "regions" is rightly used for geographical regions, but the terminology again is wrong—does it imply historical regions now in Serbia that existed in the Middle Ages (far-fetched) or provinces in the Medieval Serbian state(s)?--Zoupan01:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 your 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. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Zachlumia. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
Hi Sorabino, you keep referencing the official FBI terminology for the article currently at Persecution of Eastern Orthodox Christians, and I was wondering why that was important. Generally speaking, we should be interested in the common name for this topic across all reliable English sources, not just the name used by a particular source; however, I am curious to know why you specifically single out the FBI as important to this topic. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 08:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion nomination of Acacius of of Seleucia-Ctesiphon
Hello Sorabino,
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Acacius of of Seleucia-Ctesiphon for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.
@Chris troutman:, its already mentioned in almost all of those articles, in references or sources, I am just adding more complete version, with link to that book on Google Books. Sorabino (talk) 20:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But I don't think that's very helpful. For example, you added the Frazee book to several articles. It's definitely germane to that one article but it's not listed in the citations. When you drop a citation like that across a bunch of articles at once, it looks more like you're advertising for the author than trying to help readers find material. If you really wanted to better the article, you could improve the text using books like that one as in-line citations. I'd prefer you avoid doing what you're doing. Chris Troutman (talk)20:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for canvassing ([4]). You were already warned here that canvassing is not allowed, but you've did it again. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
Hello, I'm Oshwah. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Byzantine Catholic Church of Croatia and Serbia with this edit, without adequately 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, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from 2004 unrest in Kosovo into Persecution of Christians. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 03:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of World Heritage Sites in Serbia#Stećci Medieval Tombstones Graveyards. Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 20:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)Template:Z48
Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Bulgar–Serb War (839–842). While well-sourced, objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. What you're doing looks like WP:BOOKSPAM. We welcome you adding references but when you add the same book to a dozen articles as a general reference, it doesn't look constructive. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:05, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add badly sourced or unsourced soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Bulgar–Serb War (853), you may be blocked from editing. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:06, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising, as you did at Bulgarian–Serbian wars of 917–924. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:06, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
