User talk:TryDeletingMe

February 2017

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Terrorism in Yugoslavia. 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. -- Samtar ^{talk · contribs} 14:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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 that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Drmies (talk) 03:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorism in Yugoslavia

Please come and discuss your proposed changes on Talk:Terrorism in Yugoslavia. I would also suggest you read Wikipedia:Vandalism#What is not vandalism. Thank you. ~barakokula31 (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Vladimir Rybář

Hi, I'm Abishe. TryDeletingMe, thanks for creating Vladimir Rybář!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix.

Hello TryDeletingMe: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Abishe (talk) 04:58, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Merry Christmas and Season's Greetings. Thank you.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Abishe (talk) 04:58, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 28

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 that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Many of your edits have been reverted due to being WP:OR. The latest case is on Era Istrefi, where you insist to add content countering with what the source actually says. As it has already been noted [1], the source says that a woman, not Era Istrefi herself, is semi-nude in the video. Beaware that source misrepresention/falsification might lead you into losing editing privileges. You should not add claims that are not present in the sources you use. Ktrimi991 (talk) 10:59, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You placed some "small addition" here, most of it not having any source. You have have probably forgotten to add the relevant sources. Otherwise try to find some. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do not use IPs to edit, as you have a registred account. That practice is not allowed. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:17, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See You in Montevideo

Hi. You added some content on See You in Montevideo saying The Yugoslav team were the underdogs of the tournament and were given a minimal chance of succeeding after being drawn with the favorites of the tournament, Brazil. Thanks to the talent and dedication of the players, they defeated Bolivia and Brazil in their group stage and advanced to the knockout stage. Can you provide a source and a quote from the source translated in English, if the source is in another language? After my request, you added a source on B. Wongar but it seems it does not support all your claims. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flags of Kekistan, Gaddafi, and Assad

Hello, I was curious as to what motivates your choice of flags on your user page. Care to explain? Cheers, --Calthinus (talk) 09:57, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately there are many users who engage in spreading pro-Daesh/Salafi ideology via Wikipedia edits. These flags serve those users a reminder that there are people like myself who will hold them accountable for their actions. --TryDeletingMe (talk) 10:00, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, perhaps you could elaborate on what this has to do specifically with the concept of "Kekistan"? Point of curiosity for me. Cheers, --Calthinus (talk) 10:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Still curious, please enlighten me :). --Calthinus (talk) 17:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting. Dying of curiosity. --Calthinus (talk) 16:33, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Ktrimi991 (talk) 07:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

Your recent editing history at Chetniks shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:43, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, TryDeletingMe, 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 complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

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 ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:59, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you antidiskriminator for the message of welcome TryDeletingMe (talk) 06:21, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Church of Christ the Saviour, Pristina, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page University of Pristina (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:17, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

Hello, I'm Flyer22 Reborn. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to List of destroyed heritage— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:38, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to the talkpage, the edit was done in line with the aim to reduce POV additions and to make it more neutral. The section of text removed was POV and not neutral in nature. TryDeletingMe (talk) 05:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2004 unrest in Kosovo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page KFOR (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert for articles and content relating to 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.

Doug Weller talk 12:02, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Telling editors that removal of one of your edits will be considered a pro-terrorist edit is unacceptable

Note that the discretionary sanctions mentioned above include an expectation that you will avoid such edits and remain civil. 14:47, 9 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs)

If an editor is editing a page in a biased and POV manner to either promote a terrorist group in a more positive manner or, disregarding their activities then yes it is a pro-terrorist edit. Many of my neutral and referenced edits that refer to terrorist activity in Kosovo have been removed. If you had bothered to take a few minutes to look at the context of the edits then you would see this is an ongoing problem related to this and that I adhere to a strict neutral and factual tone. I find it an oxymoron that you ask me to be civil after my additions of a well publicised terrorist inspired attack was removed as either the other editors were triggered or found that their page was no longer a safe space but in fact, a reality check. TryDeletingMe (talk) 00:11, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller, I think this has been going on long enough, and now the editor finds it necessary to say things like "the other editors were triggered"--that talk, and the sneer about "safe spaces", warrants a topic ban, and the claim that some editors "promote a terrorist group" is worthy of a block, possibly a NOTHERE block. Drmies (talk) 00:18, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies If you spent even 10 seconds to look at the issue at hand you would understand exactly what is going on. I have attached a link to the page promotion for your consideration if you are finding it difficult to gauge what the term "promotion" means and the characteristics of its behaviour. TryDeletingMe (talk) 00:47, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find that difficult at all, and now that I saw your talk page, I think I know what to do. Drmies (talk) 00:56, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban

The following topic ban now applies to you:

You are banned for six months from editing any page, including talk pages, or making any edits related to the topic of the Balkans, broadly construed.

You have been sanctioned because your comments to other editors contains egregious personal attacks and suggest that you are unable to edit neutrally in this area. Saying that your editorial opponents promote terrorism is perhaps acceptable on social media, but not on Wikipedia.

This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please go to WP:TBAN and read the information there to see what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period, to enforce the ban.

If you wish to appeal against the ban, you may do so via the procedure outlined here, Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Appeals_by_sanctioned_editors. Drmies (talk) 01:05, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement block

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for violations of your topic ban relating to the Balkans, most significantly in this edit, which was not only a violation of the topic ban but also the start of edit-warring, about which you have been warned several times in the past. This edit was also a violation of the topic ban. 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 ~~~~}}. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:59, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I have apparently been blocked as I attempted to expand the Kosovo section in the page List of destroyed heritage by adding an event that occurred regarding Daesh inspired vandalism. This was contested even though I provided a legitimate reference and described the event using neutral terms. I was also banned as a moderator took offence to the words "safe space" and "triggered" and myself calling out peoples biased edit as pro-terrorist. These terms were used to describe certain editors being triggered by my edits and engaging in a edit war and also, the editors who engage in my edit war seeing certain pages relating to Kosovo and the terrorist/guerilla organisation known as the Kosovo Liberation Army as protected "safe" pages, even though the pages were not under a protection status. I have attempted to water down biased and skewed material related to Kosovo and the Kosovo Liberation Army (who one editor even described as a Catholic Fraternity) and on many occasions came to an agreement with other editors in a civil manner which I commend them for. I have not removed any other content added by another moderator and merely expand content to make it neutral, however to some groups of editors this is a thorn in their eye. This overreaction is a mockery to the Wikipedia page given its foundation in free speech, neutral and non-biased principles. TryDeletingMe (talk) 13:33, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Clear breaches of topic ban. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:53, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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).

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

Request reason:

My edits were right, so I wasn't edit warring! This is an unfair block! I am new here! I did nothing wrong! The blocking administrator hates me! UNBLOCK ME IMMEDIATELY, THIS IS CENSORSHIP, I HAVE A RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH!!! If you block me, you have to block User:DaeshSupporter too! He has been vandalizing even more! Please unblock me. My sister / brother / mother / father / friend / roommate / enemy / pet used my computer and pretended to be me. I won't let this happen again. Oh lighten up, I was drunk / having a bet with a friend / just playing around. It was a joke! Oh come on, the blocking administrator is stupid / arrogant / idiotic. Remove his administrator rights and block him! He blocked me for nothing! My account was hacked; I didn't make any of the edits I was blocked for. If you do not promptly unblock me, I will have absolutely no choice but to sue Wikimedia in order to get my editing rights back. I'll make a big donation to Wikipedia if you unblock me as a sign of my good faith. Okay, I made a mistake. Give me a second chance and I promise if you block me again, I won't contest it! TryDeletingMe (talk) 14:34, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm changing this to an indefinite block based on the claim of being hacked. WP:COMPROMISED is not something that's taken lightly, and then you double down with a legal threat. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:37, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

For what it's worth, suing Wikipedia to "get [your] editing rights back" is unlikely to get you very far. Wikipedia does not have "free speech", and there is no legal "right" for anyone to edit. The owners of Wikipedia choose to allow members of the public to contribute, and there is no law that says they have to, or that they can't choose to exclude particular people from that privilege. However, I'm probably wasting my time saying this, since you are unlikely to take any notice of someone who is stupid arrogant and idiotic. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:35, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I feel I have to add that I think the First Amendment represents one of the finest pieces of constitutional progress that our enlightened world has conceived. It thus saddens me that so many Americans seem to have absolutely no clue about what it says and means. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noting for the record that the user has socked at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TryDeletingMe. @RickinBaltimore, JamesBWatson, and Boing! said Zebedee: FYI, unblock request was a complete troll, since the user literally copied all of that from our "examples of bad unblock requests" at WP:EBUR. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:00, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lmao I am glad this guy was perma banned. He was obviously a troll and his behaving in this comment section is childish. SavoyenCRO (talk) 10:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]