User talk:Obsuser/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Welcome!

Hello, Obsuser, 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 my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 09:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Obsuser. You have new messages at Jeraphine Gryphon's talk page.
Message added 09:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 09:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Prison Break

Hi, this is an explanation as to why I have "deleted" your contribution. I actually had already made my edit, but there was an edit conflict with yours, so I simply replaced yours with mine. I'll explain explicitly as to why as there's numerous reasons:

It's a revival, not a fifth season.
We don't need to include dated info such as its development (from June) in lead, all we need is that it's confirmed. This is included in its own subsection now.
Several unencyclopedic sentences, such as "After a number of media reports on serious considerations of bringig back the Prison Break on TVs again, and a reunion project of the iconic show similar to last year's 24: Live Another Day..." – besides spelling/grammar errors, this is completely inappropriate in tone for Wikipedia; you're not writing a news article, it's an encyclopedia.
Excessive use of quotations. We don't need to reiterate every single thing said from the sourced articles, just key facts.
Excessive citations, all that is needed is one reliable source, not five that say the exact same thing.
And after a more careful look, it seems all you did was just copy and paste from the articles sourced, which is WP:COPYVIO.

That is why. Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Mahashta Murasi

Hello Obsuser,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Mahashta Murasi for deletion, because it appears to duplicate an existing Wikipedia article, [[{{{article}}}]].

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted, 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. ubiquity (talk) 19:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bosnia and Herzegovina convertible mark, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Singular. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Bosnia and Herzegovina convertible mark

Had a look at the page. Changed a few (fairly minor) things. Other editors may change more! Eagleash (talk) 22:31, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Template:Documentation/preload-module-sandbox

Hello. Welcome to Wikipedia! I found your {{Documentation/preload-module-sandbox}} and am wondering it it has a use, or was it a test or something? If you are done with it, you can tag it with {{db-author}} so that admins know it can be deleted. If you need help, I'm not as active as I've been in the past, but you are free to ask me. Cheers! —PC-XT+ 11:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Documentation/end box2/doc

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. stranger195 (talk • contribs • guest book) 05:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 8

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. I corrected it. --Obsuser (talk) 12:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Revert on Prison Break

When there is a copyright violation you absolutely revert it immediately. If you want to put it back revised, fine, but the correct first course of action is a revert. If you read the rules at WP:CV its extremely obvious that it should have been reverted. Your argument is that its similar, however per WP:CV it clearly states even inserting text copied with some changes can be a copyright violation if there is substantial linguistic similarity in creative language or sentence structure; this is known as close paraphrasing, which can also raise concerns about plagiarism. Such a situation should be treated seriously, as copyright violations not only harm Wikipedia's redistributability, but also create legal issues.

By the person who added it using word for word the phrases like crazy (read: lethal) and a bad-ass nut-job it absolute fits under the violations highlighted above. - Galatz ^Talk 01:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Is it good right now? --Obsuser (talk) 05:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources at Hillary Clinton

Re: [1]

I'm an uninterested observer (spectator) in this dispute, but I do have a comment regarding your edit summary. We routinely omit sources because they are not reliable sources, and we do so without a list of reliable or unreliable sources. No such list exists. So your requirement to show such a guideline doesn't hold water. In any case, you are one of the participants in an edit war, which does have something in writing (a policy not a guideline). I would suggest that you open a talk page discussion on the question, rather than "discussing it" by revert and edit summary. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I simply don’t want someone to delete source expressing his own attitude whether it is relevant or not. Can I can say "The New York Times is not relevant." and delete it just like that? Of course no. Moreover, The Washington Times states almost same as others do, and there’s no reason to have minus one source if we can have plus one source confirming some statement. --Obsuser (talk) 23:12, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

First the word is reliable, not relevant. Relevance is not the issue here.
Yes, you can say that NYT is not a reliable source for a given bit of content, and delete it just like that. That is a WP:BOLD edit. If your edit is disputed, the question is then resolved by a consensus reached through debate in article talk. It is not resolved by edit warring. Assuming you're right for the sake of argument, being right does not justify edit warring. Further, other editors' edit warring does not justify yours. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Reliable I did mean, relevant it is indisputably. I cannot delete it just like that by generalizing (un)reliability what user did; Scjessey said "It's a pro-right wing opinion rag founded by the Moonies." what is only his opinion and not reason for deletion of reference. WP:BOLD does not allow this, and I was not insisting on adding something new but keeping something for what there is no reason to get removed from the article.

Of course it does not justify my edit warring but that was rather preventing vandalism than edit warring because source was deleted with no explanation except own opinion on reliability of that big daily. --Obsuser (talk) 00:49, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but that's simply false. Vandalism is deliberate defacing of an article, such as by adding garbage characters, adding profanity, or blanking. All else is content dispute. If someone makes a clearly bad edit, it's easy to reach a consensus against it in article talk, but the article talk is still required. If you don't believe me, bring it up at a public venue such as WP:VPP. The term vandalism is widely overused. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

To continue the somewhat off-topic line of discussion in article talk, it does frustrate the hell out of me when I'm on the losing side of a consensus and my opponents didn't address the points I made in my arguments. I think that sucks. A recent example is here. But there is nothing currently in policy to prevent them from doing that, so I just have to live with it (I lack the energy to fight for a change like that). It's just one of the crazy things I've learned to live with so as to continue editing with my sanity intact.
That said, there's a difference between not addressing your points and not addressing your points in a way that you find persuasive. In the above-linked case, there was no indication the editors even read my points, let alone bothered to comprehend them. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Whatever you want to point out I know just one thing: as there’s no reason for TWT not to be confirming statement as same as other references do, it WILL be included back in the article if no consensus is reached because no consensus was reached before removing it either.

If you want, give me some arguments, proofs, whatever – why Washington Times should not be included in the article... --Obsuser (talk) 05:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I already gave my arguments in article talk, and this is exactly what I meant when I said your opponents are not required to convince you that you're wrong. You still don't seem to have grasped that concept, and you're ignoring any arguments that you don't find convincing, pretending that they were never made. That's what leads people to disruptive editing and being the subject of ANI complaints. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I don’t see those arguments. Can you list them?

One thing: they are not my opponents, we just do not share same opinion and that does not make us opponents. If two editors don’t want to explain removal of source, that does not mean I’m wrong. Also, I don’t pretend they were never made: they were never made. All you focused on was explanation of guidelines but arguments why specifically The Washington Times should not be used as a source and why is it non-reliable [and why that prevents it from just being in article as extra source] have not been given yet. --Obsuser (talk) 06:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Every debate has opponents. That word occurs twice in Debate, and "debate opponents" returns 328 true hits in Google. If someone disagrees with you in a debate, they are your opponent. That is not to say they are your enemy, and perhaps you're interpreting the two words as synonyms.
My argument can be concisely summarized as follows, and I don't know why you couldn't find this in the article talk. 1. The suitability of Washington Times as a reliable source is in significant dispute, as evidenced in that other discussion. That alone should be enough to exclude them in many situations, but 2. The bar should be higher in this article, as it is a BLP under discretionary sanctions about a current presidential candidate. Put differently, we need to confine ourselves to unimpeachable sources in this article.
That's my argument. Agree or disagree, but don't say I haven't given an argument. And, for at least the third time, your opponents are not required to convince you that you're wrong, and I hope you will stop threatening to edit against a consensus that doesn't make any sense to you—a consensus that doesn't even exist yet. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, debate opponents.

That argument you gave is referring to the previous debate that has no valid arguments either. Valid argument would be any sort of proof that daily or its online edition is somehow giving false, deceptive or incorrect information. That proof does not exist or was not given yet.

That’s becoming a bit funny: "your opponents are not required to convince that you're wrong". Only problem is that this is NOT what we are trying to achieve; we are not trying to convince anybody as editor opinions does not matter and/or change any fact but to proove validity of (their) own opinions that lead to the excluding of Washington Times reference from article confirming same as other references do.

Hypothetically, if you actually not needed to convince me I’m wrong, you actually would need indeed to do that because I still think I’m right, you are wrong. Then I don’t need to convince you and we just created a paradox that does not exist if someone convinces the other one (same as proof of something in physics: nobody can say this is right while others say opposite; only one solution is correct in this case, and both sides must be giving arguments in order to work out solution and reach a consensus).

I see you like to play with words what is not nice from your side. I’m not threatening anything/anyone; I’m saying there’s no explanation for excluding WT yet; yet, it is excluded from the article. In order to fix that properly, we should include it back, till someone prooves why it should not be confirming same as other sources do. You are not guilty till it is prooven opposite. Reference/WT is not "guilty" till it is prooven opposite. But obviously nobody cares about that.

Please, before replying think just about this: 1. It is confirming same thing as TNYT, Politico etc. report, same... 2. If it was telling us something else, still it is not enough for three or five editors to say it not reliable and insist on keeping it out of the article because all views (perspectives) should and must be found in an article, not those for which a group of users say they are valid or they are preferrable because that democratic voting which is not allowed is being practiced (this voting should be avoid as much as possible; only reaching a consensus is important when all sides will agree). --Obsuser (talk) 07:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

It's difficult enough debating the content. I'm not going to debate process with you ad nauseam, but I will refer you to WP:ONUS, part of the WP:Verifiability policy, in particular the sentence, "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." You're incorrectly attempting to shift the burden of proof onto your opponents.
I've about had my fill here, and I'd suggest taking any further process discussion to WP:VPP. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Content is not disputed, reference confirming it besides other references is [trying to be disputed], for no given valid prooved by-arguments-supported reason. --Obsuser (talk) 08:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

References are content, everything a reader sees is content. And you are still shifting the burden inappropriately. I thought I was done here. Now I am. Really! ―Mandruss ☎ 09:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

It is not problem if a reference confirms some undisputably true content, that’s what I meant. I’m not shifting anything, I’m asking why I cannot add Washington Times next to the New York Times? Because group of users consider it non-reliable? If it is like that, then RfC is really needed so Washington Times gets blacklisted for all articles.

Also, it is not important whether you are done somewhere or not; consensus must be reached or reason for removing source given; if not, why should we/you exclude it if someone put it there? That is blanking as every other vandalism blanking. --Obsuser (talk) 09:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2016. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Please join the conversation on the article's talk page. -- Irn (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

My way of editing

Hello, I started the conversation regarding gravitational waves over two weeks ago, and when no one responded, I removed the text. I reverted you once to draw your attention to the discussion. When you ignored that invitation to participate in the conversation and insisted on restoring your preferred version of the page, I placed the warning on your talk page to further encourage you to join the conversation instead of continuing to edit war. If placing the template on your page was more aggressive than it needed to be, I apologize, but you had literally edit-warred while refusing to join the conversation, and so I thought it appropriate. -- Irn (talk) 10:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Voynich template 2

Hi Obsuser, I saw your latest edit on the Voynich timeline template. I understand you wanted to make it as wide as the full manuscript template, but:

it appears ugly and extends the screen in my browser, I don't know with you (or with others): like this
the template is meant to be not too wide (actually the full manuscript was intended narrower but the fold-out pages needed to be visible so it's wide). That template shows full-screen in my browser, doesn't extend beyond it like the timeline now
do you have an answer to the cryptography citation tags needed? If they are out of the way and the article gets improved even more it could go for a status "A" review. As you've seen I've improved quite a bit but to be honest there can be done more to the text and chapters.

Cheers, Tisquesusa (talk) 19:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi.

I suggest then to put 100% width for timeline.
Is another table you created and I edited before timeline better? Or worse? Is it going to the right as this timeline?
I guess no, I would suggest removing the template below "Language hypotheses" section.

I translated this article into Serbian several months ago and today followed your addition (update). But table was popping-up when pressing show/hide and widths were not equal, so I tried to fix it.

Your edits were improvement but I have several questions: Is it OK to have Cited bibliography for only once used citation (Tucker & Talbert, for example, is used only once as reference so it could have been directly included with template and <ref></ref>)? Template {{aut}} is not safe for use in CS1 citation templates so it might be good idea to remove it (it is in |author= parameters). Why did you remove Further reading item in French (Antoine Casanova, Méthodes d’analyse du langage crypté: Une contribution à l’étude du manuscrit de Voynich)? Why are two sources removed (they have broken URLs but are available on Wayback; they are Philip Neal's analysis of Marci's grammar and The New Signature of Horczicky and the Comparison of them all, as I remember)?

Maybe to continue dicussion on the article's talk page? If you want, don't know...--Obsuser (talk) 20:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

We may be continue discussion on the talk page there, but then about the citation tags and references. The table you edited (I didn't know about "reprecated" use of align=center, I like it, but your change is ok of course; it does the same thing). Width is ok and images scale well. It would be even better to use vertical-width=x to get all the pages really neat, but spent so much time on it already that I left that for later. 100% width for the timeline seems ok, if it removes the error that is there now.

I use "Bibliography" for books, journals and videos that are multiple pages. It serves 2 purposes: 1) divides the references into single-page ones (newslinks, analyst websites) and material that contains more information spreading across different pages. As I don't have the books, I cannot put page numbers on the refs taken from the book, but ideally that would be the best format. See the Featured Articles, they all have that. 2) it serves as a source (especially when linked, with open source journals and videos) to add more contecnt to the article and also as a link to the source itself. I build all my articles like that and serves for easier expansion. See for instance how I took more content from the analysis of the ink and paint and put it into the article.

The {aut} template is very professional I think. It is used widely in other articles and shows the authors better. Imho if there's an error with CS1, then it's a trigger to improve that; the technology is slave to us, not the other way around.

I have removed a couple of links because they either were already in the other parts and/or were dead or impossible to find. If you find them feel free to add them back in. It was not meant to select sources also because I don't have access to them, so I wouldn't be able to tell if they're reliable or not. Philip Neal definitely should be added back but if I recall well his link was already in another part so that's why I removed the duplication. Tisquesusa (talk) 20:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Timeline is now OK. align=center is deprecated, not "reprecated" (maybe my typo, don't remember).

I think if "Tucker & Talbert" (example) is used only once as a citation (you can always specify |page= or |pages=, in {{harvnb}} too, if it page(s) data is known), it should not be using {{harvnb}} i.e. it should not be in cited bibliography but in normal references. If you cite "Tucker & Talbert" two, three or more times, then in order not to repeat reference over and over it is put in bibliography and harvnb is used to specify different pages if any; if there are no different pages i.e. references are same, you name harvnb reference and then repeat it so it links to just one full reference that is in cited bibliography.

I've seen template {{aut}} for the first time in this article. And I've seen it is in category for CS1 not recommended templates as it pollutes the COinS metadata. It should be simply removed.

These two citations, Philip Neal's analysis of Marci's grammar and The New Signature of Horczicky and the Comparison of them all, are available on Wayback (their respective broken URLs). Méthodes d’analyse du langage crypté: Une contribution à l’étude du manuscrit de Voynich might be useful and does not have broken URL.--Obsuser (talk) 21:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 15

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. --Obsuser (talk) 11:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016

Thank you for your contributions. One of your recent contributions to Gotthard Base Tunnel has been reverted or removed, because it contains speculative or unconfirmed information about a past event. Please only add material if it is verifiable, based on a reliable source. title=Gotthard_Base_Tunnel&oldid=726173218: the reference does not speak about satanic at all. ZH8000 (talk) 12:08, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Not exactly my contribution but a revert to someone else's prevoiusly added and then removed (referenced) content.--Obsuser (talk) 12:13, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Prison Break (season 1)

Hi, you recently undid my edits to some episodes? Were they too long, or something else? I'll be glad to know the answer. --HamedH94 (talk) 17:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I guess Drovethru reverted previous similar expansion of the first episode summary as it breaks consistency, so I followed that. If you want, you can discuss or take your edits back but I think they will be reverted as Prison Break articles are being "protected" 24/7 by the mentioned user. --Obsuser (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

There was no inconsistency. Drovethru mentioned "concise" and then I shortened it to the routine size used in other series. He had another edit later, but he didn't undo mine. There is no problem right now. --HamedH94 (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

It is still much longer than other summaries. But however you want... --Obsuser (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Image captions

I saw this. You may be interested to know that I once started a discussion trying to change the "consensus" to be for image captions rather than against. Around eight people participated, one opposed, the rest supported. The conversation achieved nothing because the one opposing user was a stubborn admin and there wasn't enough participants. —DangerousJXD (talk) 21:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

It can be started again but I did play the game several days ago and still don't know if that was cut scene, box-art, DVD cover or whatever. So, at least in the L.A. Noire case, caption is needed.--Obsuser (talk) 21:48, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Note that, as expected, the caption has now been removed by the user I expected to remove it. If you want to pursue further discussion, seek that user. —DangerousJXD (talk) 07:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016

Constructive contributions are appreciated and strongly encouraged, but your recent edit to the userpage of another user may be considered vandalism. Specifically, your edit to User Talk:ZH8000 may be offensive or unwelcome. In general, it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing others' userpages without their permission. Instead, please bring the matter to their talk page and let them edit their user page themselves if they agree on a need to do so. Please refer to Wikipedia:User page for more information on User page etiquette. Thank you. ZH8000 (talk) 02:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Again, stop this childish nonsense. You could be not be more wrong. You are not supposed to undo any edit or modify any message on another user's talk page. This is indeeed considered vadalism. I therefore indeed added a warning to your own talk page. Learn the rules and come back to useful, respectful and considered argumentation. If you do not comply, I will not hesitate to report you. -- ZH8000 (talk) 02:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

@ZH8000: What is "childish nonsense", expression you use very often? I did not edited or modified others' messages but saw you delete many messages from your talk page, even warnings on edit warring. This is not vandalism, maybe you only exaggerate it in order to justify your impolite behaviour on Wikipedia generally (aside from removing comments), and are not ready to explain and discuss.

Argument i.e. my explanation is that I will not insist on keeping that warning message on your talk page because it is your talk page, and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#OWNTALK and Wikipedia:User pages#Removal of comments, notices, and warnings applies. However, it says although archiving is preferred; what do you think about this?

Also, sorry if you saw my edits inappropriate; maybe I should have only started a disucussion to ask you to consider archiving rather than impolite-with-rude-edit-summaries deleting/behaviour.--Obsuser (talk) 15:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions on Longevity articles

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Longevity, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

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 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.

DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Your grammar opinions vs Wikipedia protocol

Please read the Wikipedia Manual of Style. You may have some personal opinions that differ from the Manual of Style, I do too, but editors should stay consistent with the guidelines. The syntax has always been "known professionally". Wash whites separately (talk) 17:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, it may seem like there are inconsistencies, but it's all grammatically correct nonetheless. I've only ever seen it as "known professionally as", "also known as", and "better known as". As long as "known professionally as" is grammatically correct—which it is—and typically the most used convention for biography leads with stage names, I don't see any reason to fix something that isn't broken. Wash whites separately (talk) 18:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

House (TV series)

Per Help:Minor edit, please do not mark reversions of contested or good faith edits as "minor". A minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, rearrangement of text without modification of content, or the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits. DrKay (talk) 05:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, I will not.

Thank you.--Obsuser (talk) 07:14, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016

Your recent editing history at Gottahard Base Tunnel 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 article's 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.
Once again. And especially futile about such a minor issue. Please, reconsider your attitude. ZH8000 (talk) 17:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

/doc on other Wikipedias

This seems like the type question that could be answered on WP:VPT. Even if it doesn't refer specifically to English Wikipedia, they might know where else to go.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

@Vchimpanzee: Thank you. I've already posted it there too. Nobody responded yet. --Obsuser (talk) 21:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Obsuser. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

House (TV series)

Next time do not revert back my edits without leaving an edit summary or a message on my talk page, because Ken was a main cast member, he was not recurring. Zhyboo (talk) 20:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

2016–17 Turkish purges

If you think that the article on the 2016–17 Turkish purges should be renamed, please use the procedure at WP:RM. The previous proposal for a change of name was decided by the requested move process.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:18, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

en-4

Probably not if you think one can "commit" personal attacks. 174.17.207.124 (talk) 16:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Is that a crucial factor, and should other users or IPs discuss one's user page (if it complies with guidelines)!? This rating is not important and cannot be verified for any user.

Btw, same wording was used here, and similar one here and on other occasions (Wikipedia search; see also wikt:commit#Verb, definition 4). It can be corrected if it sounds bad/unnatural for a native speaker. --Obsuser (talk) 15:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Periodic table

I've reverted your GF edit in periodic table. Reason is that styles too are important for itscontent. Shortly I'll be back (no more time right now). One thing that would be good: in the current svg, language switches could be added (provided that en:WP:ELEMENTS remains the editing party). Default best be en (enwiki). -DePiep (talk) 14:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, I've started discussion there on WP:ELEMENTS. Switches are added to the new version which is improved with something else (as I explained on WP:ELEMENTS); yes, en is default. --Obsuser (talk) 21:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Obsuser. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Obsuser. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Allness

I noticed that your text was removed as undue from the main God article. If not already there, maybe your text would be acceptable at God in Christianity. —Paleo Neonate – 02:54, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. But it should also stay there. Or, at least, have same info on Allness. --Obsuser (talk) 12:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, it should be added to the article Concepts of God, because Allness is an unitarian concept. I did it, with empty section so that someone does not choose deletion. I restored section in God, with some tweaks. --Obsuser (talk) 12:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: Please take part in the discussions because some users revert whole edits as if topic does not exist. --Obsuser (talk) 15:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

You really need to first reach consensus for your changes at the relevant talk pages before restoring (please see WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:3RR). I'm not really part of the discussion yet but only noticed that other editors have been patient as they could already have reported you for edit warring... —Paleo Neonate – 23:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Rachel-Lee Anderson moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Rachel-Lee Anderson, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

About editwarring

You wrote "edit war is after three reverts; no consensus needed to add section on relevant topic". That's a misunderstaning on your part, editwarring does not require three reverts, see WP:EDITWAR: "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to engage in an edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so". Try to follow the spirit of WP:BRD. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:31, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I thought that those are simple reverts (at least one revert). OK.--Obsuser (talk) 09:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

July 2019

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Serbs, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Dr. K. 11:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

If you let me, I will add sources. --Obsuser (talk) 11:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Serbs. Dr. K. 11:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I know. --Obsuser (talk) 11:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

ANI courtesy notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Dr. K. 11:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Obsuser reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: ). Thank you. Dr. K. 12:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notice about the Balkans

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have recently shown interest in the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Dr. K. 12:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

You were quite clearly warned that you would be blocked the next time you added unsourced information to Wikipedia. You acknowledged this by informing the other editors with "I know". And then you proceeded to revert again to add unsourced information to Wikipedia. As a result you've been blocked for both edit warring and continua addition of unsourced information and personal opinions. Canterbury Tail talk 12:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail: I did not manage to put {{subst:an3-notice}} ~~~~ to User:Dr.K.'s and User:Mm.srb's talk page after reporting them for edit warring too on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, so please someone else do it if needed. --Obsuser (talk) 12:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit warrring and hate speech?

Your recent editing history at [[:The info is not relevant for the lead. Sources are local tabloids or nationalisticlly driven authors. No NPOV is in place. You will be reported and not beause somedy dislikes "the thruth" but because the way you push yor POV and deny another nation, which a form of hate speech. Serbians are not a nation, Serbs are. Read about it. Serbians is the name for Serbs from Central Serbia and the term is sometimes used for every citizen of Serbia. Mm.srb (talk) 12:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)]] shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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. Mm.srb (talk) 12:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I know all of that. That is very important for the lede. Al Jazeera is not local tabloid, nor academia.edu nor hrcak nor author Branko Đ. Nikač. I don't deny nations, only deny that ethnic groups are nations; form of the hate speech is to call national Croats or Bosniaks in Serbia Serbs and not Serbians. I know those rules, no need for you to put them on my talk page. --Obsuser (talk) 12:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

You shoud not act so pushy or aggesisve... Al jazeera is a regional media. Branko Nikač is not NPOV and that book is not abot sociology or nations, but about his notions of falsities in Serbian history. Academia paper does not support your thesis. In all honesty, I think that you do not understand what you are talking about. French people are both a nation and a ethnic group and this goes for pretty much most of ethnic groups in Europe. Srbijanac is a regional term, which you do not understand clearly enough. Serbs and other nations from Vojvodina are not Serbians, per say. It is a complicated matter. Mm.srb (talk) 12:33, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Using proper adjective is not any thesis, using improper one is chauvinism. French people are (but differentiate national French people and ethnic French people). Srbijanac is regional term in Serbian language; however, in English language Serbian(s) is national determination (and thus adjective Serbian for those from Serbia, Serbian(s), and adjective Serb for ethnic Serb(s)). You don't know what are you talking about, there are no nations from Vojvodina nor nations from Bosnia nor nations from Herzegovina because those are not states but regions; Bosnians and Herzegovinians are nation, Switzerland people are nation (and not ethnic groups). Read articles nation and ethnic group and then continue to comment.--Obsuser (talk) 14:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Regarding your comment on Talk:Serbs, I can comfortably say same as you have said: I understand that you think that you have a point - but you don't. Ask yourself for a few seconds who has a point and who pushes non-neutral POV.--Obsuser (talk) 14:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Lang-bs-Cyrl

@Trappist the monk: I was blocked in the meantime for edit warring on some other page but want to notify you you are completely right – change it to inherit because English does not allow italic Cyrillic (Bosnian and Serbian do, don't know for Russian and other, just to say). --Obsuser (talk) 14:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Copyright

One of your recent additions has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Canterbury Tail talk 13:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Statehood Day (Bosnia and Herzegovina) moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Statehood Day (Bosnia and Herzegovina), does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:09, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

@Onel5969: No need for a such thoughtless move because I created articles several seconds ago and was not able to add references immediately. Now they are added and the page has not yet been moved so no need to move; Draft can be deleted or kept, I don't know which is better. --Obsuser (talk) 12:15, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Dan državnosti

I had to decline your speedy deletion request on Dan državnosti because that's not a valid speedy reason for redirects. If you think it needs to be deleted, try RfD. Cheers! ----Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:31, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

@Fabrictramp: I have changed it to disambig, cannot stay that way because it would be non-neutral POV. --Obsuser (talk) 11:58, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

That works too. ----Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:57, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Nusreta Kobić moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Nusreta Kobić, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

"Bathons uprisal" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Bathons uprisal. Since you had some involvement with the Bathons uprisal redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:18, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

"Module:WikidataCommonscat" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Module:WikidataCommonscat. Since you had some involvement with the Module:WikidataCommonscat redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Nihad Fetić Hakala moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Nihad Fetić Hakala, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. Currently it doesn't have a single independent, reliable source. YouTube is not a RS, and the other citation is a publicity site. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Rachel-Lee Anderson (November 3)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by MurielMary were:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.

The comment the reviewer left was:

YouTube is not a reliable source for a Wikipedia article. Also it's not clear how this person meets the criteria for a biography on Wikipedia. Please read the criteria and add details to the article to show notability.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Rachel-Lee Anderson and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Rachel-Lee Anderson, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

MurielMary (talk) 22:55, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Obsuser! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! MurielMary (talk) 22:55, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

November 2019

Your recent editing history at Dua Lipa shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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.
𝔹𝕚𝕝𝕝𝕚𝕖𝕜𝕙𝕒𝕝𝕚𝕕𝕗𝕒𝕟 ^💬 00:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

User talk pages

Just a word of advice: per WP:OWNTALK, users can remove comments from their own talk pages, and it is not appropriate to revert them when they do so. If you leave a warning on a user's talk page and they delete it, that is considered confirmation that they've seen the message. You should not put it back after they remove it. Schazjmd (talk) 01:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Guideline wp:UP#CMT says can remove but archiving is better. We are forced to do what is better, one must not choose worse options. --Obsuser (talk) 01:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Obsuser, you reverting Billiekhalidfan has nothing to do with whether they were going to archive the post or not. Chances are you will be blocked again if you continue to revert users when they've removed something from their talk page, especially if it's one of your edit-war warnings when you're engaging in exactly the same behaviour. So I would take this as a lesson to not do so in future or you'll continue to gain further attention from admins. Ss112 11:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

@Billiekhalidfan: 👏 for putting that Rude Vandal as a link title and making it lead to my contribs. I thought there is a such account so you claim it is my sock... Well played (if was intentional, maybe was subconsciousnessly intentional if not really intentional)... --Obsuser (talk) 01:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Maya Berović

@Soundwaweserb, Sadko, and HoneymoonAve27: or someone else: Please revert vandalisms on Maya Berović. Thanks. --Obsuser (talk) 15:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Done--Soundwaweserb (talk) 15:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I have added Zdravko Čolić and Maya Berović to my watch list. If in future you find that people try to force you to edit war, after two reverts ask for help - but remember to put the request for help in a neutral way. Toddy1 (talk) 15:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

November 2019 (2)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Dua Lipa. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 01:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

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).

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

Request reason:

Reverting any vandalism does not count as a violation of three-revert rule. Invalid removal of a new (same as "old", already present for a certain longer time) content in an article is a vandalism so I reverted it. --Obsuser (talk) 01:24, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

See WP:NOTVANDAL. This edit warring clearly isn't about vandalism. Huon (talk) 01:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

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.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at Zdravko Čolić. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Please do not resume edit-warring. I have asked the other party to explain his/her revert using the article talk page. If he/she does so, then we can discuss it. If he/she does not, just leave the reversions to other people.

Do you have access to: Culture and customs of Serbia and Montenegro by Christopher Deliso? If yes, please could you find out the page number that is being cited. Toddy1 (talk) 21:05, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I cannot let a group of obvious vandals continue their crazy edits. They have to talk it before removal. No, I cannot leave the reversions because they are false.

Source needs not to be published online nor accesible always for it to support a statement. --Obsuser (talk) 22:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Non-free use of File:Bosnia and Herzegovina's national anthem.ogg

Hi Obsuser. A separate specific non-free use rationale is required for each use of a non-free file per WP:NFCC#10c, WP:NFCCE and WP:NFC#Implementation. This means that if a non-free file is used in more than one article or more than one time in the same article that a non-free use rationale specific to each of those uses needs to be added to the file's page. This file is currently being used in two articles, National Anthem of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Bosnia and Herzegovina, but it only has a non-free use rationale for the use in the article about the national anthem. So, if you think the file's non-free use is also justified in the other article, please add a non-free use rationales for it to the file's page.

As long as the file is missing a non-free use rationale, it will keep being flagged for review by a WP:BOT designed to check non-free file usage in Wikipedia articles and will keep being removed by a bot or human file reviewer. The best way to stop that from happening is to provide the missing rationale. That won't guarantee that anyone won't challenge the validity of the non-free use as explained in WP:JUSTONE, but it should stop the bots for flagging for review. Please see Talk:Bosnia and Herzegovina#Fair use rationale for File:Bosnia and Herzegovina's national anthem.ogg for more details on this.

The template I've added to the file's page is actually intended to let others know that the file is only missing the required non-free use rationale, and give them an opportunity to add it before the file is removed. Removing that template will not stop the file from being removed by a bot/file reviewer from the file, but it might make it harder for others to be aware of the problem. If you're not sure how to add a non-free use rationale for the Bosnia and Herzegovina article, you can ask for help at WP:MCQ. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Even then the 25-second sample version should only be on the article about the anthem itself, per fair use. Clicking on the link takes you there so there's no need to put the sample on the country page. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 22:22, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

You may be correct in that case, but now that a non-free use rationale has been provided, you can either (1) dispute it by adding {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} to the file's page or (2) nominating the file for discussion at WP:FFD. If you re-read my above post, I did mention that simply providing a missing rationale for a particular non-free use automatically WP:NFCC policy compliant; it just means that WP:NFCC#10c is no longer an issue and adding the missing rationale only stop the file from being flag as a NFCC#10c violation and removed by a bot. There are ten non-free content use criteria that each use of a non-free file needs to meet, and NFCC#10c is WP:JUSTONE (actually it's just one part of one criterion) of them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Alright, fair enough. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 02:57, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Obsuser: from your block log I see that you should be well aware of the rules around edit warring: this is a warning that you can edit war without violating the three revert rule, and that you should not be repeatedly reverting on Bosnia and Herzegovina, even if you believe that the file is valid under NFC. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Marina Tadić for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Marina Tadić is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marina Tadić until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Celestina007 (talk) 04:35, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

January 2020

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Marina Tadić; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Nusreta Kobić concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Nusreta Kobić, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:27, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Obsuser

Recently u made an edit on article Željko Bebek. You agreed with my point that he never held Bosnian nationality cuz he never lived in the sovereign state of Bosnia. You then proceeded to undo my revision. I just wanted to ask you to read WP:Ethnicity and review the article again. Peace SerVasi (talk) 03:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

He did. --Obsuser (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

No he didn't just read the article. He moved when the war started. Peace SerVasi (talk) 08:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Nihad Fetić Hakala concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Nihad Fetić Hakala, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:25, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Rachel-Lee Anderson concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Rachel-Lee Anderson, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Basketball backboard shattering - photo by Chuck Miller.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Basketball backboard shattering - photo by Chuck Miller.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. 167.29.4.150 (talk) 20:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Rachel-Lee Anderson

Hello, Obsuser. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Rachel-Lee Anderson".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 06:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Nusreta Kobić

Hello, Obsuser. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Nusreta Kobić".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Lapablo (talk) 21:35, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Severina (album) moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Severina (album), does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Jalen Folf (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)