User talk:ILIRIDAproud

February 2017

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Republic of Ilirida, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Republic of Ilirida 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. Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to Republic of Ilirida while logged out. Making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting. Note that the abusive use of multiple accounts or evasion of a blockage may result to you to have been blocked from editing Wikipedia. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:50, 3 February 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:ILIRIDAproud reported by User:Iryna Harpy (Result: ). Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:08, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello ILIRIDAproud. You've been warned as the result of the edit warring complaint. You are expected to keep your personal opinions in check. If you continue to make non-neutral edits about the Balkans you may be blocked for disruption or banned from certain topics under the discretionary sanctions. If you are unsure how to proceed, ask for assistance. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Note

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.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:11, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

February 2017

There have been two problems identified with this account: the account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and your username indicates that the account represents a business or other organisation or group, which is also against policy, as an account must be for just one person. Because of those problems, the account has been blocked indefinitely from editing.

If you intend to make useful contributions about some topic other than your business or organisation, you may request an unblock. To do so, post the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:CentralAuth to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy. Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In this reason, you must:

• Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked.
• Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Orange Mike | Talk 14:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@Orangemike: Not sure this is a great block. Would we username block an editor named "USAproud" for making pro-USA edits? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:43, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Given the dubious nature of the article in question, and the editor's unbroken history of promotional editing on this topic, the name becomes blockable as indicating the editor's lack of the obligatory neutral point of view. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:07, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with User:Orangemike. Though ILIRIDAproud doesn't yet qualify for a long term block under the edit warring standards, his choice of a user name puts him into the spam category where such blocks are routinely given. If he requests unblock to change his user name that's when we would have to reflect. EdJohnston (talk) 17:29, 4 February 2017 (UTC)