User talk:Dejanmilic

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Predrag Boskovic.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 04:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Predrag Bošković, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Sionk (talk) 20:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dejanmilic, I've removed your embedded URL's again, which you have been adding to Predrag Bošković. Embedded URL's can be used to add references or sources, but shouldn't be used to advertise company/organisation websites. Most of these websites are already available elsewhere - and you could add the Budućnost Podgorica website to the 'External links' section of the RK Budućnost Podgorica article, for example.

Please also remember not to sign your name on articles. Your contributions are listed in the articles' edit history (which anyone can view by clicking on the 'View history' tab at the top of the page). Hope that helps! Sionk (talk) 22:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Predrag Bošković

Hello, I'm Elserbio00. I noticed that you removed topically-relevant content from a Wikipedia article. However, Wikipedia is not censored. Please do not remove or censor information that directly relates to the subject of the article. If the content in question involves images, you have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide images that you may find offensive. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Elserbio00 (talk) 12:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Elserbio00 (talk) 13:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert

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 shown interest in the Balkans or Eastern Europe. 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 the 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.

El_C 16:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that, outside of certain narrowly-defined cases, Wikipedia has a bright-line rule about reverts: if you revert more than three times in 24 hours, even if you are in the right and the other editor is in the wrong, you are edit-warring and engaging in disruptive conduct and are extremely likely to be blocked. (Note also that while 3RR is a bright-line rule you do not have to reach 3RR in order to be edit-warring and blocked.) Given the article has already been protected, in this case a block would serve no purpose, so instead this is your only warning: if you resume edit-warring once protection expires, instead of discussing on the article talk page to establish consensus, you will be subject to being blocked without further warning. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Partial block from Predrag Bošković

You have been blocked from editing the Predrag Bošković article (but not the talk page) for a period of one month for edit warring. 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 ~~~~}}. El_C 19:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El_C 19:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Predrag Boskovic

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).

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

Request reason:

I was blocked because I was deleting wrong information without credible source put by other users. Source were junk papers. Please unblock me since I was just insisting on using credible sources.

Decline reason:

No, you were blocked for violating WP:EW, at least much of which had nothing whatsoever to do with wrong information or sourcing. Yamla (talk) 20:32, 31 January 2021 (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.

February 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. 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 ~~~~}}. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your block has been extended to a site-wide block due to sock puppetry, which is highly against Wikipedia policy. You created another account in order to evade the partial block that was placed on this account, as evidenced by this SPI report. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021

Hello, I'm Vacant0. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Predrag Bošković have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Vacant0 (talk) 16:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021

Hello, I'm Vacant0. I noticed that you recently removed content from Predrag Bošković without adequately 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; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your 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. --Vacant0 (talk) 13:33, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite partial block from Predrag Bošković

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain areas of the encyclopedia for edit warring (still).

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 ~~~~}}.

El_C 06:24, 21 November 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

Sorry for not writing reason when deleting part of the article. I removed part with wrong data with references to opinion posed in tabloids. That shouldn't be a relevant reference. Source of data should be verificable facts. Predrag Boskovic is a politician and has many opponents so that's why that is happening. I am not interested in politics at all and wrote article about him because he is one of the persons who contributed most to the development of handball in Monetnegro as well as to winning the only Olympic medal that Montenegro has. Therefore, please unblock me and in future when deleting something I will give detailed explanation. Proof that someone who is making these changes has something personally against him is the fact that he is keeping putting back picture in which he doesn't look as good as in the original one. Dejanmilic (talk) 06:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This does not address your edit warring, or tell us the proper way in which to resolve editing disputes. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 09:50, 23 November 2021 (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.