User talk:Vanjagenije/Archive 20

5250:. Following the blocks that you implemented on user Durraz0 and me for the edit warring, Durraz0 engaged with me in a proper discussion at the talk page and we found a compromise solution for the article satisfactory for both sides and implemented it. Durraz0 sent me a "thanks" for my compromise edit. He further admitted to making a mistake before when he just copy-pasted the older version of the article, removing references and so on, and said he would work on correcting himself in the future in this regard. Everything was then fine for several weeks until editor Adhurim Jakupi, that you previously blocked three times for edit warring and making nationalistic/ethnic comments at Kosare and Pastrik battle articles, showed up and once again did a blanket revert of the text in the article (removing the compromise wording, removing sources and inserting unsourced text) without any edit summary. He even canceled out some of Durraz0's edits which were proper. I reinstated the discussed-on compromise version, making a note of this in the edit summary and asking Adhurim Jakupi to engage at the talk page. I am guessing, based on his past behavior, that Adhurim Jakupi will just simply revert me first chance he gets and will not engage at the talk page (several editors in the past requested him to engage in discussions, which he always refused). In case he does this, I will withhold from making any more edits and notify you so you could assess what action could or should be taken. 3378:, editor Adhurim Jakupi removed a few days ago some referenced info, along with its sources, and introduced information without providing any sources (violation of OR guideline). I tried improving on his edit by adding sources for some of the information that he added, reintroducing the referenced content that he removed without proper explanation, removing some of the unsourced info he added and adding new sourced info. He fully reverted my edit in less than a day with an edit summary saying "Please!! Don't touch the exact sources, because it is a sin for victims". I pointed out for him at the talk page that, among other things, I did not touch any of the sources and in fact added references for the info he earlier edited in. Also, I would say the edit summary is rather POV in nature so the edit itself may be considered POV-pushing. The reason I am contacting you is because I have seen you've had experience with this editor in the past and from his talk page that he has been blocked twice for edit warring, as well as warned several times, in regards to edits made on multiple KLA-related articles, without any communication/replies made with other fellow editors, so I am expecting more of the same this time as well based on his edits over the last few days. Regards. 2897:, i respect you much. Some editors get worked up over a silly comment (one made after the bile they throw around) when their records are odious with rapport toward other editors and at times high on the conspiratorial level (i.e: constantly making unfounded aspersions). Just sideline it. A lot of the times it could be either personal insecurities or behaviors they project onto others or maybe not. There isn't much one can do for those poor lost wiki souls. Anyway I've had good rapport with some editors over the years on wiki and come to respect those who are consistent, not hypocrites and not trying to game the system, even when there has been strong disagreement between me and them on certain topics. Please, i urge you and others not to get baited. In general there are some editors who make no real effort to improving Knowledge and often engage in smears, constantly getting into fights and who know how to use the system to their advantage. If many of you haven’t picked up on this after interacting with disrupters by now, you will keep making the same error. It took more than a decade for admins to recently take seriously the editing pattern of a certain editor and impose a topic ban on all Balkan topics for nationalist editing. Its slow going on wiki. 4103:, who you earlier blocked for repeated edit warring and POV-pushing. His edits included the removal of referenced info, along with its sources, and introduction of information without providing any sources (violation of OR guideline) or even leaving information that is contrary to the cited references. Please feel free to verify how unconstructive the edits were yourself. The nature of the edits I think would have to warrant some attention to the changes being made at the article so it would stay within Knowledge's guidelines on verifiability. A temporary extended confirmed protection of the article should also maybe be considered (especially since other similar edits have been made recently by another editor as well 2688:. As soon as you were reverted, you should have started a talkpage discussion. I don't understand how it is that an editor who wants to add something to an article, makes 3 reverts, doesn't start any discussion, makes a verifiably false claim about his edits which weren't on the article at least for the past 1+ years and then after all of that goes on to accuse others of edit-warring and causing "disruption". That's not how wikipedia functions. Editors should take responsibility for their edits. You tried to add something, it was rejected by multiple editors. Past that point, everything belongs to the talkpage. -- 2071:

nije vršen na teritoriji Kosova. Takva je barem situacija bila zadnjih 7-8 godina koliko sam član Vikipedije i učestvujem u uređivanju ovog članka o Srbiji. Prethodnih pola godine zbog privatne situacije nisam bio aktivan na Vikipediji pa sam tek pre neki dan primetio da je član HighGroundIII u međuvremenu napravio izmenu u infobox-u i uvodnom delu gde je paušalno dodao okruglu ukupnu cifru stanovništva Srbije (s Kosovom) valjda sabirajući sa cifrom s popisa Srbije iz 2011. dodajući u zagradi napomenu "including Kosovo". Problem s ovakvom izmenom člana HighGroundIII je višestruk:

782:, you can notice that first change was made by User Notrium on 12:14, 15 June 2020‎ and again on 20:48, 21 June 2020‎ , 23:10, 28 June 2020 etc. and he was always reverted by different editors I believe that it is vandalism but I am not disputing that you now better than I do I am just trying to tell you that we should revert it as it was, also again user Pentaxem change it again on 02:35, 4 July 2020‎ that is something you maybe did not notice and that's is why you reverted my change. I was just reverting it to it's original . SO please don't block me. 31: 6454: 5538: 4149:

the edit today, once again reinserting the sources that were removed and removing the unsourced material, I am expecting Durraz0, or one of the others, to quickly show up again, removing sourced content and reinserting unsourced content or content that is contrary to the cited references. If this indeed does happen again, and considering the edit history of this article for the past six months, I thought of suggesting the temporary edit protection. Kind regards!

6069: 5934: 5747: 5699: 5651: 4858: 4654: 4364: 2372: 2094:

navedeni podaci o BDP-u ("excluding Kosovo" naravno, jer su to jedini zvanično dostupni podaci s obzirom da naš zavod ne vrši statističku obradu na KiM a ostale relevantne ekonomske organizacije, MMF i SB, nas tretiraju odvojeno) i pristup HighGroundIII bi doveo do dupliranja svakog podatka, obaška što ne postoje podaci koji imaju ukupnu cifru za Srbiju s Kosovom, već bi moralo da se radi "ručno" sabiranje što nije ni metodološki ni enciklopedijski ispravno.

2014: 1966: 1408: 1286: 1142: 908: 5195: 4260: 3763: 2420: 2150: 566: 1542: 221: 3819: 3460: 1706:: this isn't a case of one side "having policies on their side" and the other not; nearly all of the editors in the discussion are experienced editors and all of us argued in favour of our interpretation of the relevant policies. Whilst consensus isn't a vote counting exercise, closing a discussion in this way in favour of the numerical minority requires a level of explanation that I find yours to be lacking. 6700:). I have seen users that engage in this type of disruptive behavior in the past, and they are difficult to deal with due to their inability to follow the guidelines here on Knowledge. Can you please help monitor and deal with this user. I respect that you are an extremely experienced Wikipedian, and have most likely dealt with this type of situation in the past. Thank you for any help you may provide. 3450: 5862: 4333: 2312:

details, I was put in doubt that he might made injuries by himself. If injuries were described just as they seemed when he ended in hospital, it would be more precise and English readers would understand better background and reactions taken afterwards to cover this incident up. I can see that last update was done on specific date on June 28th 2020 by an author different than you.

521:). In my opinion the discussion reached it's end and now we have situation that argumentation are repeating itself, we have over 35 editors that contributed with comments and/or voting. The RfC lasts over 15 days already and since you are one of official english wikipedia administrators you are probably the most competent to say on what to do next ? How long until it is closed? 1765:, please let this one go. You are a good closer, and that was a difficult call for anyone. I've had several MRV's of my closes that I disagreed with; however, I was still able to learn some things from them. I think they helped me become a better closer and a better editor. So please let it go and move on to better things. Best of everything to you and yours 5212:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see 4277:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see 3780:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see 2437:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see 2167:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see 583:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see 1679:(Pile-on supervote). I don't know what is "active consensus", but I do know what is consensus. Consensus is measured by the strength of arguments, not by the number of supporters, you should know that too. Those who supported overturning the closure obviously had policies on their side, so the consensus was quite clear in this case. 6384:, avoiding rangeblocks is fine in general, but I urge you to make an exception for the IPv6 /64 ranges. Those represent a single person, and that person will use IPs all across the range (through no fault of their own, as Vanjagenije points out). There's no downside to blocking such a range; it merely blocks the individual. 2774:. The NE template needs a cleanup because the amount of settlements which Alexikoua has added is unreasonable. The same cleanup as the CA template. Also, despite BIDIRECTIONAL on CA there are settlements which definitely fall under the category and are even part of the temlate but there's still refusal for their inclusion.-- 4213:] which he posted on several articles claiming to be a new "genealogical study", I believe he made several changes on croatian,russian and serbian articles using dubious newspaper articles. I do not wish to go into edit warring so I am leaving to you to make a decision should this source be include into articles. Thank you. 3280:

presence 100 years ago as well. And why not, Northern Epirus template on every Northern Epirote town. Or the Dutch template to every US city that used to be a dutch colony in the past. Just this is not how Templates are meant to be used in Knowledge. Such nationalist approaches to Knowledge's articles are disturbing. ---

2940:@Vanjagenije: I hope you can see what is going on here. The minute you report one of these guys, the whole brigade descends and start slinging mud, turning any report into a total shitshow (one of them even dug up stuff from 2009). This is what happened last time I reported one of this group for gaming at 2099:

zvaničnih naziva jugoslovneskih država i neke sitne jezičke prepravke) jer kolega bez obrazloženja briše i te izmene, što je klasičan primer vandalizma. Još jednom sam napravio izmene, ali ne gajim iluzije da neće ponovo da ih obriše pa ti se stoga obraćam u nadi da ćeš pomoći u rešavanju ovog problema.

6717:

The same user has now reverted all the correcting edits made trying to restore stable versions of the aforementioned articles. They have also completely erased the warning that was posted to their talk page, which is also against regulations. It is my belief that they will continue to engage in their

6525:

I want to stress that the page for the Public institution for social security fund has not been published yet and has not been indexed by google either, the page is 3 weeks old. As far as I can remember and unless I am mistaken, it is possible to link a Knowledge page to another despite the fact that

6515:

Hello / Zdravo, whilst editing Knowledge, I encountered an issue which is likely a bug or it may be a more complex issue and since I have been Knowledge for a long time now, I may forgotten a few things, now that I have gotten back at it. The issue is very simple, I added the square brackets in order

5139:

Zdravo Vanja. How are you? I reverted your edit at the abovementioned article. Some clans are divided into multiple ethnic groups regardless of origin. The Škrijel are on such example as are the Kuči, on the first we have both names in bold to in regards to this. I made the change so I thought id let

1063:

Please help with discussion (or with closing it) on Novak Djokovic talk page (Novak's mother) . It seems that we're all talking about the same thing and agreeing on the same point but nobody understands no one. And as you previously mentioned that you are a Serbian or from that Region I guess you can

6600:

Indeed, it was my lack of attention, it is almost like programming, you need the exact variable name. The correct name is institution rather than institute, you were right and now that I corrected everything including the "for", it worked. Regarding the page, I meant that it has not yet been indexed

3646:

is what I wrote in his talk page, but I see that you already gave him a warning about edit warring, and I'm concerned that this revert is not in good faith. As I said, I completely understand the edit is indeed controversial, but, is it really the solution to delete 12000 characters because it might

2078:

s vremena na vreme su se pojavljivale ovakve izmene i svaki put je na Talk page-u zauzet stav da se držimo cifre s popisa 2011. odnosno updateovane procene (na osnovu tog popisa iz 2011.) s jasnom napomenom "excluding Kosovo"; pretražujući po arhivi Talk page-a, našao sam da su poslednje rasprave na

1647:

On the contrary, I would like to protest this close as there was clearly no consensus whatsoever to overturn the move result; the vast majority of editors in the move review were against overturning the move, and overturning a move at MRV requires an active consensus to do so. I can agree with a "no

625:

I'm sorry but I dont obtain unsourced information, I work for an individual who i edit and add content to his page, if you need real info about it please come to our office at Lilongwe City center or phone the office ask for me Jack Ernest. I will even arrange a meeting with the owner himself if you

6124:

Let me know if you could help me with this task and if not, let me know if you know someone on wikipedia that would be the go to person to help with such matters ? I am trying to contact a few administrators who seem to be highly competent in those fields but am currently having a hard time finding

6120:

Therefore, I am looking for other, recognized editors that I could consult in case I need help or advice if I encounter roadblocks during my endeavor. I would need to get advice from someone who is well versed in the fields of finance and business. (Or interested in such matters enough to help me)

6116:

Dear fellow Wikipedian, Despite having been off Knowledge for sometime now, I am coming back with a few specific ideas in mind for which I may need to get help and advice. I am looking to create a few Knowledge pages about various financial institutions which are quite high in notability but have

5384:

Based on that. It dosen't make sense to me in Koshare the majority is Albanian. So why at least is not the first word Koshare do to the majority being Albanians.... And i see you changing Albanian pages all the time so you clear dont want us to speak our right opinion. First should be mentioned the

4148:

I pointed it out because, when looking at the article's edit history, the editor in question Durraz0, as well as apparently a few other POV editors, have constantly been coming back to the article (for months) to revert any editor who tried to rectify their unsourced POV editing. Thus, after I made

3637:

of crime and corruption" trying to follow the style of as is present in the article for the Russian governing party "Edinaya Rossiya". Of course, such an edit is indeed controversial, and hard to write (and dangerous) (so nobody didn't do it before) However, it seems that an user "Vacant0" reverted

3538:

I believe I've found evidence of sockpuppetry but due to the nature of the evidence I can't report the sockmaster through a traditional SPI. Because I have no intention of publicly revealing the suspected sock master's identity I was hoping I could discretely and responsibly pass the evidence to an

3393:

I just looked at the article's edit history and seems he has tried repeatedly and sporadically to push through his version of the content, along with several more (smaller) edits that were contrary to cited sources without any meaningful communication with the other editors for the last two months.

3279:

You are trying to add a template to cities where no Cham Albanians live at all. Their last recorded presence was prior to their expulsion to Albania 60 years ago. If we go with your flawed logic, perhaps we should also start adding Ottoman navigation templates, on every Balkan city that had Ottoman

3243:

By actually calling a "threat" another editor's request towards you to stop edit-warring, you're speeding up the need for admin oversight. I started checking the articles from which you've removed the tag. It's very disruptive that you've removed it even from articles which extensively discuss this

2093:

ukoliko bi se prihvatio njegov pristup, za koji navodi da je vođen razlogom konzistentnosti i objektivnosti, onda bi sledstveno trebali svaki podatak da dupliramo sa including Kosovo/excluding Kosovo što bi kao posledicu učinilo članak nepreglednim i nečitljivim. Konkretno, u pomenutom infobox-u su

1918:

I'm just asking you for advice on what further steps would be needed. What if it comes back in the form of a new IP address, as has always happened? Are there solutions for that? Only three IPs were blocked, but that was not the result of my reports. No one responded in any case. I'm not asking you

717:

Excuse me ,how it is not vanadalism since original article was written that Milutin Milankovic was a Serbian scientist and user Notrium was changing that continously (5 times) without any reached consesnus on the subject? It is obvious that you are going to block me if I revert it again but you are

1618:

Rather than just send you a notification thank you, I wanted to do the deed here on your talk page. That was a tough one that probably should have been closed by an admin in the first place. Your decision was imho the correct one, and I thank you so much for taking the time and trouble to read and

2863:

Sigh. Considering the number of such "illustrative" analogous examples I can produce for you with, say, Alexikoua... this feels ironic. Whereas I have had my occasionally heated disagreements with for example Resnjari (usually over Religion-related material -- thankfully, such things actually get

2070:

Kao što si upoznat (pošto vidim da relativno redovno uređuješ taj članak), odavno je zauzet stav da se kao podaci u vezi sa stanovništvom zemlje uzimaju podaci sa popisa stanovništva iz 2011. (i zvanične procene zavoda zasnovane na tom popisu) sa napomenom "excluding Kosovo" - s obzirom da popis

5329:

Why do you change all my posts? 1. I just edited the actually cities name Kosharë is the actuall name like Zvečan is the name of an City in Nord-Kosovo so pleas could you change the name to Kosharë because at the end the majority is Albanian. And Kosovo is indenpendent believe it or not :) 👍🏻

2311:

Hi, I would like to report that English version of the article Dordje Martinovic Incident is different than the Serbian version and does not truly describe this incident. I understand that it does not need to be identical translation, but from English version description of injuries, without any

2098:

Zbog ovoga je u međuvremenu izbio svojevrstan edit war između pomenutog kolege i mene, u kojem kao kolateralna šteta stradaju i neke druge moje obrazložene izmene koje nemaju veze sa ovim gore pitanjem (ista rečenica o multietničnosti Vojvodine se pojavljuje na 2 mesta u članku, etimologija reči

346:, only that he is not a Croat, as he is. While here you support the deletion of user Sadko on this topic name, I think you are not objective. I will delete now the Yugoslav nationality from Ivan Meštrović as the user Sadko says (nationality/ethnicity) it is so fair and without double standards. 1827:

you as Serbian propagandist. I reported them a long time ago, but, unfortunately, admins often ignore my reports. This is not the only one situation. Whenever there is a problem on some Balkan topics, оnly editors who were characterized as pro-Serbian were sanctioned, although much more serious

822:

Because you are reverting the article to the state that it was not in original : It should be written MM was a Serbian scientist... because that is how the article was written. What you are doing is reverting to Yugoslav but that is not how it is written. Those changes were made by Notrium and

342:

I know you are from Serbia and you are protecting your user, and he and immediately complained to you first because you are from that country, but there should be no double standard somewhere to write Yugoslav somewhere not, see edits from that user.In addition, you put the nationality of Ivan

2556:. The accusations are obvious nonsense, since I have the articles watchlisted since before he even created his account. Also, for the record, Korce has been part of the NE template for years, yet he keeps removing the template. Any help with dealing with this disruption would be appreciated. 5164:. He said his origins were from Central Serbia, from around Homolji Mountains... interestingly enough, there are Balaševićes from around the Bor region... This being not fully tested, perhaps you could put it on his webpage as "either Balaš or Balašev" (various sources). Cheers, pozdrav 5385:

Albanian language because it is the majority. It goes the same for your Country to. I want an clear change of the names the text is fine but also the Albanian language and word should be mentioned aswell. believe me or not you have a problem towards us Albanians saying our opinion.

3160:

Unfortunately Iaof continues this pattern of revert-warring without posting the slightest explanation somewhere. He appears even more disruptive and reverts in a massive way ignoring talkpage participation (even in template's talkpage). This editor ignores completely the existence of

2796:

going on. Bringing it to admin attention, as I am doing here, is necessary. Regarding the templates, unfortunately it is very hard to assume good faith on the part of those involved when we see tag-teaming and other intellectually dishonest behavior such as what we are now seeing at

4535:

I should have published it but I hope something might be wrong, so as to afford the page from getting declined or deleted That is why i am seeking help from you. Can you please help edit, publish and review the page for approval, I would be really happy if you could do that Thanks.

2823:

you in order to explain the very simple fact that you and Alexikoua tried to ram through edits without consensus on a page which many editors watch. What did you think that would happen? When many editors disagree with your edits, then don't try to force them through.

694:

I'm hoping they can figure it out on the talk page as there has been quite a bit of instability on that article. If they kick off again after, then blocks will be forthcoming for sure. Anyhoo, nice to see you around - it's been a while since our paths have crossed! --

774:"Unwelcome, illegitimate edits to another person's user page may be considered vandalism. User pages are regarded as within the control of their respective users and generally should not be edited without permission of the user to whom they belong. See WP:UP#OWN." - 6526:

the latter has not yet been published. Let me know what the issue is according to you. And also, do you know what is the current time for the approval of a new page ? I remember it took longer back in the days but last time I checked, it was about 3 weeks. Regards,

4503:

Hello Vanja, one editor who was recently banned on SW has emigrated to en.wikipedia where he keeps using his user page to post slurs against a growing number of editors who warned him or did not agree with him in any way. Could you please do something about it?

3264:

you should follow the same course of editing. If there are sources in the article, which substantially mention the community, add the template. If not, find bibliography. If there is no bibliography, don't add the template and/or remove the settlement from the

6601:

by Google to say the least and as far as I can remember there was an approval process before this, maybe I am mistaken, last time I checked, the page got indexed after about 3 weeks and this one has not been indexed yet so I am wondering when that will happen.

4166:, he did it today, he did a full revert of my edits without any explanation in the edit summary (just like the previous time), removing referenced info, along with its sources, and introducing unsourced information (these are in my opinion POV and OR edits). 5836:) Other articles in the series are not semi-protected today, despite been a target of said sockpuppet in the past. I'd like to edit this article without making edit requests on the talk page or log in, particularly to change some reception section tables to 4232:

The Adem Jashari page is completely full of misinformation and propaganda. I don't understand why you put that Adem murdered his own family when the Serbs did that. The sole survivor Besarta went on BBC discussing what the Serb army did to her family.

653:

I had fully protected the article two hours ago and directed the editors to the use the talk page to determine consensus. The edit warring blocks are unnecessary, in my opinion, and will only kick the ball down the road with regard to the dispute.--

6281:

Greetings, hope everything is okay, there are this 2 new accounts with the same interest on the same subject that appeared today and both have the same geolocation, is there a possibility to check are they the same editor using multiple accounts ?

5408:. The English page has been deleted a few times. So I want to ask for your help to both inform me about the reason of deletion and checking my draft in the sandbox and notify me if it's good to publish. Looking forward to hear the answer; Thanks. 5159:

Hi Vanjagenije, I changed the reference to Balašević's grandparents' surname from "Balaš" to "Balašev" as per the story he personally told at a concert that I was at in the 90s. OK, not a credible source... I hope this interview attests to that -

3597:). One account was retired several months before another account was created. The first account was not blocked, not even warned for any problematic editing. Using two accounts is not a problem per se, it is only problematic if accounts are used 516:

Hello Vanjagenije. Can you please help with with closing RfC or give some advice what to do in this situation that is happening on Tesla ethnicity talk page. The request to close RfC was already made on June.14.2020 but so far nobody answered

409: 2056: 6520:

page, where I wanted to link the sentence "Public Institute for Social Security Fund" to the corresponding page talking about that organization which is the national pension fund of the state of Kuwait, you can find the link to it here:

718:

now supporting a vandalised article. Please show me a consenus where it is agreed to change from Serbian to Yugoslav and I am going to leave it. Until then all RS are representing him as Serbian since he was also a vice president of SANU

5364:

policy and that the title of the article id always the most commonly used title regardless of the local usage. And, believe it or not, I never commented about Kosovo's independence, so please do not accuse me of something I never said.

5356:. The text of the article should follow article title. It is against Knowledge rules to have "Košare" in the title and "Kosharë" in the text because that is confusing. If you think the article should be moved (renamed), you can make a 3089:

I've kindly adviced Iaof to participate in the correspondent talkpages of several articles after he performed controversial edits, but unfortunately with little success. Last time he participated in an article's talkpage was at Oct. 1

2065:

obratiću ti se na srpskom iako je razlog obraćanja članak na engleskom. Zamolio bih te, s obzirom da si administrator, da pokušaš da rešiš problem koji je zadnjih dana iskrsnuo oko uređivanja članka o Srbiji na engleskoj Vikipediji.

4771:

because Showbiz826 was using that to evade a block. The block expired, and they've continued their disruption. The history on and show the usual capitalization issues, refusal to listen to anyone else and uploaded on Commons by

540:

I am not an ideal choice for closure of that discussion. Since I am Serbian, whatever I might do, I would be accused of bias and dispute would drag for months. You should simply wait for someone more neutral to close the discussion.

276:

Let him read and let him see that I am right, you should be banned. This would protect you from editing, and the second article would not and would like to write that he is a Yugoslav, you should be banned because you are a troll.

1822:

Hello Vanja. :) I hope you're doing well. I have a problem with long-term abuse by group of similar IPs from Zagreb has posted messages in talk-pages, which included derogatory content and private information about me. They even

6651:

It was this exact approval process that I was referring to, except I totally forgot how it was called and I think that the only need for this process is actually to review these pages before indexation, as mentioned here on

1136: 2079:

tu temu bile 13. marta i 13. novembra 2018. godine i oba puta je zauzet stav da se ide na zvaničnu cifru s napomenom "excluding Kosovo". Upravo si ti 13. novembra 2018. učestvovao u raspravi i držao se ovog gore stava.

4269: 3044:

I have some doubts if the specific template needs to be part in settlements which members of the modern (post WWII) diaspora are found. Nevertheless I believe that Iaof needs to provide a decent explanation for this

4254: 2570:

Wouldn't it be fair and appropriate to report you too for your numerous reverts you've done in the past weeks? I actually noticed the discussion in the Template:Cham Albanians that is going on regarding this issue.

413: 4995:. So it looks like he meets WP:GNG, and I would like to have an article of him at Knowledge. So the question is, was the article a copy of a former one? Are the references more recent than the former AfD? Thanks, 2429: 6548:

What exactly is the "issue" you are talking about? I don't see any issue. Also, I don't know what you mean by "approval of a new page". As far as I know, there is not such thing as the approval of a new page.

3256:) and turns into one about sources. If sources substantially link a settlement to this community, then that settlement gets a mention on the template and the template gets in the article about the settlement. 6660:. The only thing that I am left to wonder is why has it not been reviewed as the process usually takes around 3 weeks as the backlog doesn't last longer than that anymore but in any case, thanks for the help. 405: 6764:

as well. I'm not sure what to do other than playing whack-a-mole, since blocking will cause collateral damage, and disruption is, objectively, negligible. Actually, it's kind of funny to watch it unfolding.

6063: 5928: 5741: 5693: 5645: 4852: 2414: 4648: 4358: 2366: 2008: 1960: 1402: 1280: 902: 2222:

do you mind telling us why you chose to leave a message on the talkpage of this particular editor/SPI cleck instead of replying to the report? Also, a report is not an accusation, it's an investigation.

4469: 6572: 3222:

Dear Admin, it seems that this whole template thing is somehow a sensitive chord for some editors here, considering that Maleschreiber just came to my Talk page (!) and threatened me with reports (!):

190: 1086:

two related geolocated IP's continously disrupting several pages with misleading edit logs, that are extensively reverted. Now by the emerging new IP, it became more intense (see here contributions):

3846:. 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 6466:

Thank you for helping with the English and French and Serbian sites for Niš (British) cemetery and for amending articles of the nurses who are buried there. Your kind advice is much appreciated.

3932:

at the page an IP is disruptively pushing some arguable additions, I opened a discussion in the talk, which have been ignored recurrently, the IP made rapid reverts, as well after I warned him (

2766:

File a report and both your edits and theirs can be examined - ANI, AN3 or AE. But you can't just say that because your edits/reverts were reverted multiple times themselves, those who reverted

1828:

policies violations from the “opposite side” were ignored, including threats, long term abuse, publication of private information, etc. Do you know what I have left to do? Thank you. Sincerely,

3175:

User Iaof just admitted on his talk page that his whole thing about ethnic templates to Greece's cities was done for retaliatory purposes, in relation to another template used somewhere else.

3647:

be unlikable by some? If it initiated large-scale protests I think that at least a paragraph should be written about it. I followed the guidelines from "what Knowledge is not". After all,

2115: 1179: 778:

By the link you posted, here is explanation of vandalism and since we have this situation that the changes were made without consensus as you can see on Milutin Milankovic history page :

2256:

is a heavy implication or an outright accusation about someone's motives. I haven't accused you of anything - I've reported you about specific activity. You can reply there. Thank you.--

5204: 3862: 4301: 3196:

Many of the articles in which Iaof is adding the template seem to have included it for a long time, but at one point or another the template was removed either by random IPs or by...

5189: 6516:

to embed a link inside Knowledge text on a specific page in order to link that page to another Knowledge page which has not yet been published. The page I am talking about is the

6106: 5971: 5784: 5736: 5688: 4895: 3832: 575: 5495:

to find and cite independent reliable sources with significant coverage. If there are no such sources, then the subject (person) is not notable and does not belong to Knowledge.

5040: 4691: 4401: 2461: 2409: 2051: 2003: 1445: 1323: 945: 6692:

has been making unconstructive and unsourced changes to various articles without providing edit summaries, and has even been engaging in the acts of spamming (categories at the

4558:

The draft is currently not submitted for review (as clearly explained at the top of the page). You can submit it, but I'm afraid it would be declined since there isn't a single

2815:

In my book, you're accusing others but you're not reflecting on your own edits. You made 3 reverts, you didn't use the talkpage and now you're putting forward a narrative that

4741:

I though that this might be a duplicate or that a similar list already exists and I wanted to double check as I remember that you have edited related lists several months ago.

2868:, ahem), in fact, a quick trip through the archives reveals exactly what I expected -- a predictable episode where you . So it is perhaps not surprising that you prefer to not 238: 560: 6111: 6252: 6236: 2379: 4581:

Please I would like to ask for a favor from you. Can you help me add in the reliable source to the page as you have more experience than I have in wikipedia page editing

2721:. It's almost as if they are coordinating off-wiki (e.g. "Hey I need a revert at Korce"). Then, team member two rams through material that he must know will be contested 4461: 4443: 211:

You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by

3654:

I would really like if you can help me, and tell me what's wrong, and what should I possibly change in the said section to make it acceptable. Thanks in advance, and,

5060: 1496: 1064:

understand the situation better. In my opinion descent means ethnicity so existing explanation in article suffice and yet communication gets more and more confusing.--

3113:

Yes, but that does not give you the right to revert their edits without discussion. Anyway, it was not Iaof who added Himara to that template, it was there since 2009

719: 615: 6134: 5603:

Hello; I edited my references so I think they are reliable enough. I want to ask you if you can re-review it and accept if competent cause it is needed for me soon.

5236: 3935:]). Now he put something in the talk page, but it is neither useful or solves the issue, seems a bit WP:HEAR. At this point I kindly ask your assistance. Thank You.( 1710:, your close, from what I can tell, is based entirely on your view of the original move request and not the review. That's the dictionary definition of a supervote. 3888: 3757: 3703: 3409: 2232: 2125:

that should be dealt with on the article talk page. At the moment, I see nothing that needs administrative response. Just stop edit warring and discuss the issue.

6833: 6774: 6622:

I don't know anything about Google indexing, so I can't answer that part of question. Knowledge articles do not need any formal approval, there is only informal

4702: 4595: 2944:. Any thread eventually becomes tl;dr, and nothing gets done (now watch them pile in and spam this thread as well). Anyway, sorry to bother you with this stuff. 2320: 2196: 178:- 6270: 3577: 3548: 3531: 2237:

I just want explanation from experienced administrator who is also a SPI clerk on what exactly am I being accused or "investigated" for ? This looks to me like

1607: 1272: 1254: 5998: 5041: 3980: 3690: 3672: 3658: 1529: 3752: 3438: 5443: 4988: 4804: 4643: 4481: 3248:. Now, I've expanded the article and returned the template - as I will do in all of these articles with the exception of Himara. Vanjagenije's comment about 2159: 1509: 365: 6027: 3804: 6709: 6689: 5265:

PS Thank you for the earlier blocks on Durraz0 and me, it gave us a chance to properly discuss the issues we were having and finding a compromise. Cheers!

4312: 3290: 3274: 3238: 3217: 2278: 1184: 2265: 1213: 5853: 5592: 4451: 4439: 3179: 3176: 3155: 2144: 987: 950: 6727: 6504: 5882: 5034: 4929: 2360: 2324: 2294: 885: 865: 838: 769: 6817: 6803: 6310: 5902: 5378: 5323: 4972: 4958: 3312: 3191: 3170: 3092:], as such virtually refusing any kind of communication since then. It appears that latest block in Sep. 11 due to edit warring made him quite furious. 2191: 1065: 522: 6588: 6355: 5086: 4058: 4044: 4015: 3614: 2697: 2679: 2663: 1850:

What is the exact problem? You only provided one diff (from my talk page) and that IP was blocked after making that edit. Is there any other problem?

1786: 1663: 1396: 817: 6842:

be also tagged for sock puppetry in their user page based on your closing comment. It will be helpful if I file another report on this SPI. Thanks -

5706: 2783: 1873: 6669: 6639: 6610: 6562: 6369: 6217: 6196: 5508: 5463: 4575: 3137: 3101: 3084: 2858: 2833: 2810: 2753: 6683: 5888: 5604: 5515: 5486: 5470: 5425: 5409: 4582: 4553: 4537: 4352: 3208:- settlements with a long Cham presence is just disruptive, because these articles discuss the presence of that community. I'll add some sources.-- 6163: 5128: 4816: 4158: 4143: 3352: 2523: 1721: 1692: 484: 459: 6407: 6392: 5894: 5171: 4465: 4447: 4074: 3686: 3225:. It can't make sense otherwise. In my response to his threatening message, I had to remind him, as kindly and patiently as possible, the facts: 2906: 2638: 2138: 1946: 1928: 1913: 1884: 1863: 4754: 4736: 2984: 2924: 2885: 704: 689: 400:, for example, which are not Ecumenical either. So, the template contains other major synods as well. In this sense, it is wrong to exclude the 6042: 3481: 2603: 2306: 5274: 4192: 4175: 3967: 3403: 1748: 1129: 5789: 5051:

but it ended up showing a different user. It looks like you moved a case some time ago? I'm not sure how to fix it without confusing things.

3226: 6754: 5913: 3698: 3680: 3666: 968: 446:. If you want to include non-ecumenical councils into a template titled "Ecumenical councils", I think you should look for consensus first. 6697: 6148: 4415: 4371: 4222: 2021: 745: 6058: 429: 328: 6568: 6475: 5629: 5627: 4777: 3809: 3027: 2086:

navedene izmene je kolega izvršio ne prilažući niti jednom bilokakav izvor (da ne kažem kredibilan) što je protivno politici Vikipedije.

1973: 6305:

Those are not accounts, those are IP addresses. IP address is recorded when an editor edits without logging-in (anonymously). Those are

5563: 2728:. Want more examples? There are LOTS of more examples. In fact there are so many examples of this malicious behavior I could fill out a 1640: 1371: 870:

Ah O.K. sorry I am not familiar with wikipedia rules like you are, I just spotted a problem and tried to explain it in layman's terms.

5514:

Thank you a lot I inspired from the Persian page and Enwiki pages of other people; so can you check it again? 🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽

5004: 3917: 3907: 3054: 2609:

You tagged me in this section therefore i received a notification, its logical i guess. In any case, stop distorting facts. Good luck!

2339:, not on the Serbian Knowledge. If you think the article is missing some info, you are free to add that info yourself, but you have to 1896:

All the IPs you reported were blocked. How can you say that "admins ignore your reports" if they blocked IPs. Other IPs you listed at

6037:

Hi there. Recently I encountered a new user account called Aquinasthomes1 and observed some troubling patterns that I posted about in

4493: 4117: 5394: 5339: 5289: 4793: 4768: 2912: 1564: 6244: 5161: 4590: 4545: 3364: 3117: 293: 271: 6032: 5092: 4865: 2971:

Iaof has definitely no excuse so far since his arguments (for example in this talkpage) are extremely limited in "stop doing that"

1897: 1588: 1576: 720:

https://www.amnh.org/learn-teach/curriculum-collections/earth-inside-and-out/milutin-milankovitch-seeking-the-cause-of-the-ice-ages

554: 6688:

Hello, I was hoping that you could help with a new anonymous IP user which has proven to be quite disruptive in their edits. User

6535: 5224: 5183: 5017:

The new version (the one I deleted) cited four sources, none of which are independent reliable sources. You should try creating a

4289: 3944: 3792: 3505: 2722: 2719: 2716: 2713: 2710: 2707: 2551: 2549: 2449: 2179: 1235: 595: 6808:

Are you, perhaps, one of the alleged hackers? After all, you appear to be erasing evidence about harassment and surveillance. :)

4847: 4130:

I have no idea what are you talking about. To protect the page because of edits made a month ago? What purpose would that serve?

3353:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure#Talk:Gotse_Delchev#This_article_is_a_parody

2847: 2845: 2843: 1491: 1474: 5923: 5259: 3951:

Thank you for looking into, but seeing the further contributions after your edit, unfortunately nothing changed, but get worse (

471:

It is not that "I want to include". A few non-ecumenical are already in, as I explained. Anyway, I will continue the discussion

5993: 5640: 5523: 5478: 5417: 2343:

reliable source of that info. If you are not sure what to add, you can discuss it with other editors on the article talk page (

956: 6439: 5280:

Why do you keep stop us from saying Koshare because at the end Albanians are also living in Kosovo stop the hate towards us!!

3387: 2915:. But if anything is brought to the noticeboards, your "diff archeology" from 2009 won't be of any help, sorry to inform you. 2618: 2580: 2344: 6743: 6741: 6718:

disruptive behavior, providing little room for constructive improvements or discussion, which are the pillars of Knowledge.

4435: 2953: 2565: 2241:

and that is a serious accusation so that I can react accordingly. Feel free to explain me bluntly or better yet Vanjagenije

1014: 663: 2654:. Now, do I think that the article needs admin oversight? It does, but that has to be covered via a community discussion. -- 1837: 1120:), with blatant mendacities in the edit log (the Ip's edits have been never supported by any consensus on the talk page...)( 1110: 964: 6330: 4717: 4661: 4406: 4248: 3884: 3443: 3039:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2594:

in the discussion. No, only reverts, shouting and insults. And who's following whom? You clearly followed me here as well.

1812: 1073: 381: 373: 5405: 4100:

might once again need to be looked after. Recently, editor Durraz0 made virtually the same edits as editor Adhurim Jakupi

3671:

It seems that Vacant0 responded back in the same talk page, I hope we won't have further issues. I'll notify you if I do!

3342:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2201:

Greetings Vanjagenije, as SPI clerk could you please help me to understand am I being accused here for being sockpuppet ?

506: 6038: 5845: 5612: 4914: 4086: 3223: 1483: 1466: 877: 830: 823:

Pentaxem in last few days without concesus. You are now supporting the change that was not in originaly written article

789: 737: 4828: 1099: 6117:

not yet been covered, however, despite my experience and my knowledge of the field, I am new to this kind of content.

5839: 4475: 4324: 4240: 1804: 5208:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 4807:) to make the same exact changes and refusing to even attempt consensus via talk pages. If you could kindly review... 4519: 4273:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 4181: 4164: 4106: 4104: 4101: 3996: 3776:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 2876:

charming behaviors can be discussed :) -- which I am sure I will soon be subjected to yet more examples of (sigh). --

2492: 2433:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 2163:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 1824: 1224: 1053: 579:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 3114: 2792:

This has been going on for a vert long time now, and it's crystal clear to anyone acting in good faith that there is

2316: 1149: 472: 443: 6848: 5813: 4091: 3518:

Yes I do have, but I'm not sure what are you talking about. Why would you send a sensitive private material to me?

641: 243: 175: 167: 163: 159: 155: 151: 147: 143: 139: 135: 131: 77: 63: 3643: 1869: 299: 6750: 6696:

article) and silent vandalism (discrete vandalism of native names amongst a massive misplaced, unsourced edit at

6240: 6045:. Do you mind having a second look, as an admin with experience in this wonderful topic area? :D I don't want to 5919: 5754: 5636: 5149: 4843: 3913: 3880: 3544: 3501: 3002: 1584: 1392: 1268: 1231: 712: 610: 127: 123: 119: 115: 111: 107: 103: 99: 95: 6740:

Take a look at this IP range. No change to the mainspace, but unhinged non-English rants in the edit summaries.

2651:

is false as at least in the past ~100 revisions as early as September 2019 the template was not on this article

2648: 2203:] As far that I understand this User is trying to prove that mentioned IP addresses belong to me,am I right ? -- 1648:

consensus to overturn" result, but overturning it given the way the discussion was going feels very much like a

5809: 5179: 5140:

you know my reasoning behind it. If you dont want this to clutter your talkpage feel free to remove it. Thanks

3628: 3374:

Hello, I am pre-emptively contacting you to point out an article that may need watching. Regarding the article

3142:

Hmmm wish I saw that sooner so I would post here instead. Well my post can be found at Iaof's talk page, here:

2545: 1348: 5213: 4278: 3781: 3143: 2849:. The more admins are aware of this, the better for the topic area. But I can see why you wouldn't want that. 2438: 2168: 1676: 584: 6444: 6360:

I try to avoid rangeblocks since I can not always estimate the scale of damage. I can protect pages though.--

3178:

In my response, I advised him to refrain from messing with templates again the future as this is disruptive.

1334: 417: 6575:". Note the difference between "Institution" and "Institute" and difference in the capitalization of "for". 1613: 4762: 4531:

Hello I need your help, am helping a friend out on creating a page but the page is still in the draft page

4524: 4204: 3922: 3855: 3197: 3068: 3011: 2740:

has been in the template for as long as I can remember, which is longer than you have been editing. So per

2725: 1359: 1353: 526: 382: 4905:

Hello. Can you help me somehow? Create an exercise page where I can do the exercises. Thanks in advance.--

6376: 5801: 5528: 5307: 5154: 4982: 4780:. If you could, please review and block the range again. It's the most common range they use. Thanks! 3867: 3252:

in articles which fundamentally concern this community moves the discussion away from political debates (

1534: 4799:

Additonally, since the range block mentioned above, they are now using both a newly registered account (

6746: 6510: 6291: 5941: 5915: 5632: 5469:

thanks for your explanation can you please make an example of one independent resource of this topic?

5241: 5108: 4839: 4838:. If you have a reliable source that essentially says the same thing, I would encourage you to add it. 4218: 3909: 3593:

is defined as "inappropriate usage of multiple accounts". I don't see anything inappropriate here (see

3584: 3555: 3540: 3513: 3497: 3360: 2554: 2336: 2246: 2208: 1580: 1264: 1227: 1118: 1069: 404:, a synod of major importance that has been prepared for over a century. Templates in other languages ( 369: 38: 6039:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Aquinasthomes1&oldid=1036805101#contentious_edits

3639: 518: 6653: 6623: 5976: 4942: 4429: 3933: 3694: 3676: 3662: 3560:

I am not "unconformable", I just think I'm not the real address. Maybe you should contact one of the

2122: 1783: 1637: 1470: 1456: 1293: 992: 881: 834: 793: 741: 648: 511: 393: 302: 1734: 6735: 6004: 5559: 4992: 4244: 3772: 3369: 358:

Block me, Serbian propagandist, stop sending messages I know you work for Sadko and his propaganda.

255: 6089: