Tanper

Welcome!

Hello, Tanper, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to East-Central Europe does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{Help me}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Balkans does not have an edit summary.Please make sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

The edit summary appears in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list and
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Pjposullivan (talk) 14:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Tanper, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Tanper! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join other new editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from other new editors. These editors have also just begun editing Wikipedia; they may have had similar experiences as you. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from your peers. I hope to see you there! Doctree (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Teasing some Slovenian pride

I saw your comment on the Balkans page "slovenia not included in balkans, usually it's situated in europe". Last time I checked Balkans was also laying in Europe :P

Jorisvda, this is a user's talk page, not your playground for biting newcomers. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Don't you have anyone else to go bully? I see from your talk page that you enjoy doing that. Go start another war against Russia or something. Jesus. Wikipedia is full of know-it-all naggers that think wikipedia is theirs. --Jorisvda (talk)

Well, you're certainly doing a great job of demonstrating how to be a constructive Wikipedian. Enough of the racist remarks. Please try to adhere to WP:NPA. These are policies, not guidelines... and they exist for good reason. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Tanper. You have new messages at Iryna Harpy's talk page.
Message added 23:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Southeast Europe

Tanper, your change is also controversial [1]. Please discuss here: Talk:Southeast_Europe#New_changes. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 23:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

You can find many other sources excluding them. The general consensus it that Croatia and Slovenia do not belong. Tanper (talk) 23:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

Your recent editing history at Croatia shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. 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. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Notice

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.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

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 Central Europe. 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 appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:05, 22 October 2014 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

User Seader reverted the page with dubious accusations of "Croatian POV vandalism" and deleted all the progress that has been made in the past time. I reverted it back and explained that if he wishes to contribute or add sources, that he can do so by editing but not deleting all the progress made. He refused to reason and continued to do his own way, constantly reverting progress (for example, I tried adding "Football" section in "Sports", but he deleted it with his reverts, along with other added stuff (mostly sourced)and he actually has more reverts than me (which clearly means he broke the three-revert rule as well, but conveniently he's not blocked). He forces the incorrect use of Czechia instead of Czech Republic and else, which clearly means he's not into making the article better, but pushing his own agenda and than accusing others. Also, what you advise me (controversial changes, etc.) is something he should have done in the talk pages first, instead of destroying past work. This seems awfully one-sided on your part, giving me a block when he's no more (not at all) in the right than me and now the reverted artcle/edit is up there again, which is a result of vandalism which I hope you don't approve. But this block makes me believe otherwise.

Also, I shall add that I noticed edits that Seader made on Central European Time removing Croatia from the list, while Croatia as a country at that time was as independed as Czech Republic and Hungary (maybe a bit less than Hungary) which are listed - (all 3 of them were part of Austria-Hungary). This once again leads me to believe that he's only pushing his anti-Croatian agenda (or is just targeting me for whatever personal reasons he has, but objectivity is in no way present on his part) since he's cleary not interested in bettering the articles, but bending them to his POV. Tanper (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Looking at the article history, it is clear you were edit warring, and in this context, I am declining your request to be unblocked. After your block expires, you will be able to pursue dispute resolution. However, my advice is that in your next unblock request, you focus on your conduct, as opposed to the conduct of other Wikipedians. PhilKnight (talk) 21:03, 22 October 2014 (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.

Looking at the article history, it takes two to tango since conduct of other Wikipedian did play a major part in all this. My complaints are about poor moderating of the page which clearly let Seader make controversial changes prior to discussing it and having a census and let him constantly revert the progress of the page. I'm fine with my block, but same standards should be applied. Tanper (talk) 23:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Tanper, I've been following the article, but had other issues to deal with before checking in on the edit warring taking place there. Please bear in mind the advice I gave you a while ago. There is nothing on the corresponding talk page indicating that anyone other than Seader had informed any other editors of what was taking place in the article. Article talk pages exist for a reason: please use them. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Seader did leave a note on talk pages on October 20th, but the initial revert took place on October 16th without any notices. I thought talk pages are used for discussing prior to making larger edits (and revert certainly is one, since it affects all of work done in the time between), not just leaving one-sided notes as Seader did. In no way did he contribute other than reverting the page again and again. I have doubts about his "honest" intentions, as I noted earlier. Tanper (talk) 11:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

my intensions are not the topic since it is clear as day what you are trying to do here in the Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a place to force your own pov, what you are doing. Since your comments here I also see that you point of view is far shifted from reality so that I doubt that any discussion with you is making any sense. When I look at your edits here I can see that from the first edit you did in this Wikipedia you did nothing else than pushing pov, ignoring other informations and sources and also deleting them and using edit wars to force your version through. Wikipedia is not a place for that and I think that an pov politics forum would be the better place for you where you could shine. Kind regards Seader (talk) 23:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@Seader, you admit to not caring about the article you just have been vandalised? Your way of conversation speaks for you enoguh, "Dudes", "Disscusing making no sense" and calling out for PoV just for the sake of it. Tanper (talk) 11:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Per Seader, you engaged in a major rework of the article on 25 September (beginning with this edit). Not only did you delete sources, you inserted information about Croatia into sources you'd retained, even though they do not even mention Croatia. Once Seader identified the major changes, s/he made an honest attempt at reinstating the information as it stood prior your refactoring (having introduced absolutely no reliable sources).

If you are going to make bold changes, you engage in WP:BRD. The fact that the bold changes were only recognised a few weeks after their introduction does not mean that they were not bold. Once reversion to a sourced version is made, the onus in on the contributor who made the bold changes (you) to bring reliable sources to the table and explain the removal of sources which had already been in place and deemed to be RS. Instead, you engaged in edit warring. If you intend to contribute to the article after your block, I suggest that you bring sources to the talk page and discuss the content of the article with other editors before you try to make any changes. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources?

Like this? - Apperantly here lies the source for Croatia being in SE Europe, but when it opens on the page where it only speaks of Slovenia. Legit source?

- This might be the only valid source, but it's not The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, but a The Free Dictionary article which just uses it as a source.

- This one talks about Balkan, and then excludes a part of Croatia, which again means it can't be used for making decisive placing of the country, considering for what it is used as a source.

- Ok.

- An US college program used as a source? Really?

- A programme that lists Italy, Slovakia and Ukraine as South East Europe as well. And this is legit to use for citation about Croatia?

And then two "sources" which can in no way be checked, but I doubt them based on the past experience.

As for Slovenia, you also have minus one source since the book speaks of Slovenia as in Central Europe.

Serbia:

- This one basically annulates itself since it lists Serbia as both CE and SEE, which means it can not be attributed to only one claim.

- Just look at the page, and then the same problem arises as with the past source.

- I see no mention of Serbia's geographic location so I don't understand why it is listed as a source.

- here's in english: http://www.vojvodina.gov.rs/en/autonomous-province-vojvodina. Mentions only Vojvodina (not Macva and Belgrade) and does not support the claim it was cited for, just a link to a page.

- No mention of Central Europe, just Austrian Occupation (for meagre 30 or so years). Litteraly every country on the list could do the same (if not more) and for longer periods.

- A map that shows expansion of Habsburg Monarchy, not Central Europe.

All in all, not a single valid source. But I did Vojvodina since it is considered CE by some, but there just weren't sources for that.

I think that covers most of deleted sources. There are maybe only 2 or 3 somewhat valid, but they do not do much on their own. As for the inserting Croatia before citation, this I admit as my mistake since it should go after the citation, but in no way was it intentional.

As for Seader, you stil did not explain his other workings on other articles (hint: CE Time) and deletion of numerous other sources I provided or worked in (demographics), football, etc. Calling me out for PoV vandalism is dubious since I did not focus only one country, but tried to work on the article in General. Tanper (talk) 10:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

References

If you have issues with the content once your block is finished, please take it to the relevant article talk page in order that other editors can engage in discussion of the content. The process is known as WP:BRD. You're welcome to take your sources to the talk page and discuss any sources you wish to remove: the onus being on you to demonstrate that any sources being removed are not reliable and, conversely, convincing other editors that your sources are reliable. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm still eager to know how Seader had best intentions given his past edits. Because I'm afraid he might as well pull something of similar despite the discussions. And what is it with all the other content he deleted on the article (sourced, formated, etc.)? Tanper (talk) 02:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I don't have the time to involve myself this week, as I'm going on holiday. I would suggest that you follow through with the discussion on that talk page... but, please, keep a cool head about it. Concentrate on presenting reliable sources for expanding the content and how you interpret them. Wait for responses (sometimes it may take a few days for other editors to pick up on a thread). I know that the temptation is to be impatient and interpret short periods of silence as being consent, but that does not equal consensus. Focus on being WP:CIVIL and assume good faith in as much as you're able. Again, it's better to take time and be patient about developing a good, balanced article than find yourself in a position of being blocked. Cheers for the moment. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit war

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

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

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. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. 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. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Tanper. You have new messages at Iryna Harpy's talk page.
Message added 05:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

License tagging for File:February Reboot.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:February Reboot.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Problems with upload of File:Reboot logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Reboot logo.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Gameplay last issue cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Gameplay last issue cover.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 13:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Gameplay first issue.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Gameplay first issue.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 13:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Gameplay magazine issue 97.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Gameplay magazine issue 97.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 13:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Gameplay last issue cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Gameplay last issue cover.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Gameplay first issue.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Gameplay first issue.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Central Europe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kingdom of Croatia. 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) 08:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Tanper. 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)

Nomination of Reboot (magazine) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Reboot (magazine) 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/Reboot (magazine) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. czar 01:11, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:February Reboot.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:February Reboot.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Reboot logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Reboot logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)