FDrago77

FDrago77, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi FDrago77! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join experienced editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from experienced editors. These editors have been around for a long time and have extensive knowledge about how Wikipedia works. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from experts. I hope to see you there! Dathus (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Minority languages ​​in geographical Articles

• In a 2007 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user editing Balkans-related articles in a disruptive way. If you engage in further inappropriate behaviour in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article/topic ban. Thank you. Please take a look at Talk:Minority language#Minority languages ​​in geographical articles in which editors virtually unanimously agree that official minority names should be in infoboxes. Have a good day.--MirkoS18 (talk) 14:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• I can see what was your complaint about map confusion. I change it so that there is no problem now with that and community oppinion is followed. Once again have a nice and productive day.--MirkoS18 (talk) 15:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• No I don't agree that I overreacted. There is concensus in community regarding minority names and if you think it should be different you might consider to give your arguments on relevant talk pages: be it Talk:Minority language#Minority languages ​​in geographical articles or WP Croatia or any other place you might consider apropriate. Coment that something is a bit ridiculous is your oppinion and you have rıght on it. I for example think that existance of Croatian and Serbian as separate languages is more than a bit ridiculous but state of Croatia and its laws, together with Europan laws don't think. Since it is political and not linguistical issue (based on laws that protect national minorities) and we describe and do not prescribe how thing should look like, we should respect the reality. You might think there is no need for Cyrillic at all, I might think there is need in many villages, but law and practice say it is present and have official status just in some of them. Best regards.--MirkoS18 (talk) 12:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• First of all, I consider insulting and form of personal attack your assertion that I lie. Such attacks in future may result in sanctions against you so please try to restrain from them in future interactions with Wikipedia community. Secondly, I did not got anything and especially Cyrillic in articles is not something that I can (or anyone else) describe as my private property/gain. I spend part of my free time as a volunteer here with intention to make this project better. Regarding the position of Wikipedia community you can see again my previous messages with links. Again, I will undo your changes that are not in accordance with the opinion of the vast majority of the community here and if you continue to insist on their deletion without explanation (participate in discussions etc.) I'll report your behavior. I hope that in future we can build understanding and constructive relationship and wish you a nice day/evening.--MirkoS18 (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Please take into account that user IvanOS was blocked from editing for the same edits on minority co-official languages as yours are. Before you continue with your edits you should take part in discussions on places where it might be appropriate. If you still decide to do as you did so far your edits might be characterized as disruptive and you might be blocked. If you decide to discuss any of your concerns I will be happy to explain any misunderstanding that there still might be.--MirkoS18 (talk) 19:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015

Hello, I'm AdventurousSquirrel. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Vera, Croatia without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 11:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Editing against concensus

Hello. According to the recent consensus among editors,[1] it is OK to put co-official settlement names in minority languages in infoboxes. Please do not remove these without discussion and contrary to consensus, otherwise you will be reported. GregorB (talk) 06:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

You say there is "no consensus about minority languages in Croatia", but that's blatantly untrue, as both Mirko and I have provided you a link to the recent discussion that proves otherwise (it is general and does not specifically address Croatia, but there is no reason to make Croatia an exception either). You may not like the outcome of that discussion, but pushing your position on the articles contrary to what editors have agreed upon will get you banned.

You also say I have violated the canvassing rules - can you provide an example of any such violation on my part? GregorB (talk) 12:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Again, can you provide an example where Mirko used canvassing to get to me and I responded?

Regarding the categories in Ada, some indeed are problematic in my view, but the way to deal with it is to discuss, not simply to delete them with disregard for what other people have to say. GregorB (talk) 12:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, no problem. Mirko did ask me for help, but of course that's not canvassing. There was an RFC, but IIRC I was invited in a regular way (i.e. not personally). GregorB (talk) 08:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Markušica. You have been repeatedly warned; your edits now constitute vandalism. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:GregorB. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Your vandalism report

Your report at WP:AIV was highly misleading. Reports must contain accurate reports of obvious vandalism. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015

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 get 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. Black Kite (talk) 17:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet

Mike VWhy am I blocked?!?! These are the false accusations. MirkoS18 and Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi have similar editing why they are not blocked? I ask you to me to unblock, and apologize for this block and public embarrassment.--FDrago77 (talk) 15:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

MirkoS18 and Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi are technically  Unrelated. This is not the case in your situation. I won't be unblocking your account; however, you are welcome to appeal the block using the instructions above. Mike V • Talk 16:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Mike V I have no time and does not know the rules unblock. First block me for no reason, and then you want me to waste my precious time to correct your mistakes. User Gregor eliminate his opponents and then can do whatever they want. This is comedy. Who will answer for this disgrace?--FDrago77 (talk) 20:37, 15 June 2015 (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).

FDrago77 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

User:GregorB reported me is that I sockpuppet of User:IvanOS because we are both against his contributions. User Gregor eliminate his opponents and then can do whatever they want. User:Mike V blocked me and now I have to waste my time to prove that I did not sockpuppet. Please unblock me, I am falsely charged and humiliated. FDrago77 (talk) 11:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Having reviewed the evidence, I have come to the same conclusion as the blocking administrator; you are either the same person as User:IvanOS or you are working closely with them. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:49, 16 June 2015 (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.

Yunshui Is it prohibited to work on the same themes two users from the same country? Of course we are interested in the same topics, but I not his puppet and I not cooperate with him. That is a lie and I'm the victim here. disgrace--FDrago77 (talk) 13:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The thing is, your edits don't actually matter here (although being so similar they don't help your case). The main issue that is the block was placed by a checkuser. As you'll see from that link, they have the ability to check certain technical data to decide whether two accounts are being operated by the same person (or from the same device or IP address). If you wish to be unblocked, you will need to explain why your and IvanOS technical data is similar enough for the checkuser to block you. Black Kite (talk) 14:32, 16 June 2015 (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).

FDrago77 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am blocked because I have a similar changes as User:IvanOS !?!? I'm not his sockpuppet, and there is no evidence, only speculation. Please do checkuser check technical details of my account and IvanOS. I am falsely accused and blocked. FDrago77 (talk) 20:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

As noted on the SPI case page, a checkuser was done which resulted in a "possible" breach of policy. The user then went forward to present clear behavioral evidence which, along with the checkuser information, came to a reasonable conclusion that you are violating Wikipedia policies. Rjd0060 (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2015 (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.

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).

FDrago77 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Me and IvanOS come from the same country and probably have the same provider. Only binds us the same provider, but we are not the same person. Please check once again my case. Under the false accusation I blocked, 100% someone made a mistake. FDrago77 (talk) 09:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

But you have another self-admitted sockpuppet per below, right? I'm not interested in knowing full details of who's whose sock is, evidence of disruption is enough. Max Semenik (talk) 01:43, 6 July 2015 (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.

Unless your ISP uses the same IP and identifying information for everyone on its network (which is extremely unlikely) this explanation does not wash. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Jéské Couriano I do not know exactly how I connected with IvanOS. Should be publicly announce the results. It should make a check of all contributors who use T-Hrvatski Telekom (I use) and block as me. Why only me, to be a victim?--FDrago77 (talk) 21:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Checkusers will NEVER publicly announce the technical data used in a check unless the abuse is so severe escalation to an ISP or law enforcement is necessary. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

OK Jéské Couriano. How can I prove that I'm not a sockpuppet and working again on Wikipedia? This is mission impossible and I am not guilty.--FDrago77 (talk) 21:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Note for reviewing admin. A while back, I looked at these two accounts and did not block for sockpuppetry because I found that they were both editing at the same time (in one case, both editing a few seconds apart). Whilst this is of course technically possible (or meatpuppetry), I raised it on the blocking admin's talkpage. I did not get a response. Black Kite (talk) 08:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

If I break the rules of Wikipedia (3RR, Vandalism, Edit war...), I should be blocked to unlimited. But I can not be blocked in this way. Jéské Couriano The easiest thing is do not respond that all forget this. This situation corresponds to only Mike V which has found that I sockpuppet and he was mistaken. It's hard to admit the mistake.--FDrago77 (talk) 20:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

As I mentioned on my talk page, I also found Latinus3 to be a confirmed account to you. Mike V • Talk 20:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Mike V This is ridiculous Latinus3 (my account is opened after blocking) is blocked as me sockpuppet and not of IvanOS, is not that illogical. If I Drago77 sockpuppet, did not and Latinus sockpuppet of IvanOS? The fact that I opened a new account is your fault Mike V. You accused me that I have the same account as the man who lives 300 kilometers (Osijek-Daruvar) away from me!--FDrago77 (talk) 20:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oh, I give up. I tried to help here but it's fairly straightforward. Whoever sees this next can just decline and it's probably best to block talkpage access too. Black Kite (talk) 21:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)