User talk:Ilirpedia

Welcome Ilirpedia!

Now that you've joined Wikipedia, there are 47,964,105 registered editors!

Hello, Ilirpedia. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions!

I'm Jax 0677, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.

Some pages of helpful information to get you started:   Introduction to Wikipedia   The five pillars of Wikipedia   Editing tutorial   How to edit a page   Simplified Manual of Style   The basics of Wikicode   How to develop an article   How to create an article   Help pages   What Wikipedia is not

Some common sense Dos and Don'ts:   Do be bold   Do assume good faith   Do be civil   Do keep cool!   Do maintain a neutral point of view   Don't spam   Don't infringe copyright   Don't edit where you have a conflict of interest   Don't commit vandalism   Don't get blocked

If you need further help, you can:   Ask a question

or you can:   Get help at the Teahouse

or even:   Ask an experienced editor to "adopt" you

Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page, and someone will try to help.

There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:   Fight vandalism   Be a WikiFairy or a WikiGnome   Help contribute to articles

Perform maintenance tasks   Become a member of a project that interests you   Help design new templates

Remember to always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to this (your talk) page, and a timestamp.
The best way to learn about something is to experience it. Explore, learn, contribute, and don't forget to have some fun!

To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own private sandbox for use any time. Perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put {{My sandbox}} on your user page. By the way, seeing as you haven't created a user page yet, simply click here to start it.

Sincerely, Jax 0677 (talk) 04:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)   (Leave me a message)

• Español
• Deutsch
• Français
• Italiano
• עברית
• Русский
• 日本語
• Polski
• فارسی

August 2017

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Greek government-debt crisis. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi C.Fred. I am trying to contribute to the Greek government-debt crisis but, there are some individuals that are disrupting the contribution. You can take a look yourself and let me know what was done wrong. - talk (talk)

It appears to me that you are involved in a dispute over the content of the article. I don't see where anybody is clearly vandalizing the article, so the three-revert rule applies. Since there is dissent to your change, you need to start a discussion at Talk:Greek government-debt crisis and get support for the changes. See WP:BRD for more information on how the process should work. —C.Fred (talk) 00:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

As for what you have done wrong, you have violated the three-revert rule on Greek government-debt crisis. You should undo your most recent change and then discuss your desired edits on the article's talk page. Would you like assistance to undo your last edit? —C.Fred (talk) 00:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

What is there to discuss, I am providing well established sources, plus all my revision was undone for no valid reason, therefore the violation of the three-revert rule in this case in not applicable, because no valid reason was provided for undoing my work in Wikipedia. These admins/editors talk about greek crises effect on Horse Races, and yet are not okay with WHO data. Ilirpedia (talk) 01:00, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Your edit is not an exception to 3RR per the policy. Therefore you are in violation of 3RR. Would you like to self-revert? The alternative is that I will revert your edit and will block your account if you revert the page again. —C.Fred (talk) 01:01, 28 August 2017 (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:Ilirpedia reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: ). Thank you. Dr. K. 00:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert about the Balkans

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 the Balkans, 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.

Template:Z33--Dr. K. 00:39, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

August 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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.  Drmies (talk) 01:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

I am having a hard time contributing to Wikipedia article for which I was blocked. It is very time consuming to have to deal with disruptors in that article. The admin that referred me for blocking, is more like bureaucrats, focusing on 3-revert rule rather than the contribution to the article. Therefore making future contributions to Wikipedia very tough to do and even more time consuming. I am not aware of which specific three-revert rule I have violated, as I did not undu any pages but rather added more solid research to it . Thanks and I am hoping that I can finally see someone reasonable in Wikipedia and not a GANG of editors on the greek pages. Sorry but this was my experience so far in the current state of Wikipedia.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I am having a hard time contributing to Wikipedia article for which I was blocked. It is very time consuming to have to deal with disruptors in that article. The admin that referred me for blocking, is more like bureaucrats, focusing on 3-revert rule rather than the contribution to the article. Therefore making future contributions to Wikipedia very tough to do and even more time consuming. I am not aware of which specific three-revert rule I have violated, as I did not undu any pages but rather added more solid research to it . Thanks and I am hoping that I can finally see someone reasonable in Wikipedia and not a GANG of editors on the greek pages. Sorry but this was my experience so far in the current state of Wikipedia. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I am having a hard time contributing to Wikipedia article for which I was blocked. It is very time consuming to have to deal with disruptors in that article. The admin that referred me for blocking, is more like bureaucrats, focusing on 3-revert rule rather than the contribution to the article. Therefore making future contributions to Wikipedia very tough to do and even more time consuming. I am not aware of which specific three-revert rule I have violated, as I did not undu any pages but rather added more solid research to it . Thanks and I am hoping that I can finally see someone reasonable in Wikipedia and not a GANG of editors on the greek pages. Sorry but this was my experience so far in the current state of Wikipedia. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I am having a hard time contributing to Wikipedia article for which I was blocked. It is very time consuming to have to deal with disruptors in that article. The admin that referred me for blocking, is more like bureaucrats, focusing on 3-revert rule rather than the contribution to the article. Therefore making future contributions to Wikipedia very tough to do and even more time consuming. I am not aware of which specific three-revert rule I have violated, as I did not undu any pages but rather added more solid research to it . Thanks and I am hoping that I can finally see someone reasonable in Wikipedia and not a GANG of editors on the greek pages. Sorry but this was my experience so far in the current state of Wikipedia. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

.