User talk:Иованъ

Formerly most edits as Inatan. Then Renamed user 1n2n3n4n5n. Then Renamed user Inatan. Then Ivan.

Inatan, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Inatan! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Rosiestep (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Inatan, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 21:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC) Getting started Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Help directory Editing articles How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles How you can help Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Proposed deletion of Skrad (disambiguation)

The article Skrad (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Per WP:2DABS

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Boleyn (talk) 06:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the link! I had not yet read this policy. I support the deletion of the disambiguation page. The hatnotes are in place. There are only two articles that can (or probably could ever) be included, and, rather ironically, the one that is currently shorter is the more notable. Inatan (talk) 09:24, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Re: RfA

Hi Inatan! There is no obligation for you to participate in RfA or anything else that you're not comfortable with; it's perfectly fine to ignore the watchlist notices. They were implemented in an attempt to get greater visibility and participation in the process, and show up for all registered editors, so it's not just you. Thanks, ansh666 23:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi again, thank you for your comments at my RfA. Your support is much appreciated! ansh666 20:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

The pleasure was mine. We may interact with one another again in the future if there is an AfD within my scope of interest! Inatan (talk) 20:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Requests to vote in adminship discussions

Hi Inatan. I saw your vote at Ansh666's Request for Adminship and wanted to explain. The notice you saw on your watchlist is shown to everyone on their watchlist, and comes from the page MediaWiki:Watchlist-details. It doesn't necessarily require you to click through and vote, it's just placed there as an information notice, which you can simply dismiss. As you rightly noted, the atmosphere at RfA sometimes isn't great, and we have a problem with relatively low numbers of editors being nominated. The watchlist notice is designed to bring more attention to the process, and allow more editors to share their opinion on who should be given the administrator toolkit. Please feel free to ask if you have any further questions :) Sam Walton (talk) 23:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted

Hi Inatan, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Alex Shih^Talk 23:57, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Inatan (talk) 08:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Articles on Croatian settlements

Nice work on new settlement articles!

One hint: you may find it more convenient to cite Croatian Census results like this: [1] - one has to supply only the two numeric parameters from the corresponding DZS URL, plus optionally the access date, and the template does the rest. (Not that there's anything wrong with the existing citations either.)

Keep the articles coming! :-) GregorB (talk) 16:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Ha ha! Thank you very much! I will use this from now on. Inatan (talk) 17:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Do you know approximately what percentage Croatian naselja have articles? I am working on these primarily to cover the area of the castle articles I am writing based on Lopašić's Oko Kupe i Korane, and maybe eventually his Bihać i bihaćka krajina. But in the future, I might perhaps complete a few županije. Inatan (talk) 17:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Inatan. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Cyclone Ockhi

On 6 December 2017, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Cyclone Ockhi, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 04:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Iraqi Civil War (2014–present)

On 11 December 2017, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Iraqi Civil War (2014–present), which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 00:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Budački castle has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Budački castle. Thanks! Legacypac (talk) 09:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 May 2018

• From the editor: Another issue meets the deadline

• Op-ed: Has the wind gone out of the AdminShip's sails?

• Opinion: Integrating my many lives on Wikipedia

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Portals

• Discussion report: User rights, infoboxes, and more discussion on portals

• Featured content: Featured content selected by the community

• Arbitration report: Managing difficult topics

• News and notes: Lots of Wikimedia

• In the media: Wikipedia in Turkish politics; COI politics in Wikipedia; most cited work

• Traffic report: We love our superheroes

• Technology report: A trove of contributor and developer goodies

• Blog: Why I write about women on Wikipedia

• Recent research: Why people don't contribute to Wikipedia; using Wikipedia to teach statistics, technical writing, and controversial issues

• Humour: Play with your food

• Gallery: Wine not?

• From the archives: The Signpost scoops The Signpost

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

June 2018

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to 433 Eros, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. I don't know of any source which calls Eros "sock shaped". Potato-shaped is a description I have seen. Tarl N. (discuss) 12:34, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, articles calling it potato-shaped: [2], [3], [4], [5] and many others. A search for articles calling it sock-shaped only produces a reference to the Eros-brand of women's socks and hosiery. Tarl N. (discuss) 12:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@Tarl N.:The second comparison was with shoes. Socks themselves are shoe-shaped. 433 Eros doesn't look like a potato. I replaced "potato" with "sock". Thought the edit might help a little, not really caring either way. I have never engaged in edit warring, so an edit summary would have done just fine. No hard feelings. I will assume you have had a lot of negative experience with other editors. Have a nice day! Inatan (talk) 07:08, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

The point is you should never make an edit to Wikipedia which isn't backed up by a reliable source. Personal opinion should never be the basis of an edit. Tarl N. (discuss) 15:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:BLUE. Inatan (talk) 18:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Nice work on List of stars! Inatan (talk) 18:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Renamed user Inatan, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Renamed user Inatan! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Keelan (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:01, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

May 2023

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "Renamed user Inatan", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because "Renamed user" prefix is for vanished one. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username by completing the form at Special:GlobalRenameRequest, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you. -Lemonaka‎ 11:59, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Categories

Please note that pages are not allowed to be filed in redlinked categories that don't exist to have pages filed in them — you may only file pages in categories that exist. I have had to remove the redlinked category "Lists of Glagolitic inscriptions" from List of Glagolitic inscriptions (16th century) three times in the space of just one week, which is becoming disruptive — so note that there may be escalating consequences, up to possibly the total removal of your ability to edit the page at all anymore, if I continue to see that category returning to the list of redlinked categories any further. Use categories that exist, and only categories that exist. Bearcat (talk) 13:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

The reversions were not intentional, I assure you. I had not even realised you removed it because I mostly edit offline and I expected most editors to heed the "under construction" warning. Since you are so eager to assist, would you be so kind as to create that exact category page for me? I am almost ready to publish the remaining lists, and the "search all lists" field requires a category uniting all four lists and no more. If this approach runs counter to the categorisation criteria of the project, please provide an alternate solution in detail here or solve it yourself. I take it this is a stock message? If so, may I recommend you compose a version with note that there may be escalating consequences, up to possibly the total removal of your ability to edit the page at all anymore, if I continue to see that category returning to the list of redlinked categories any further written out, for use as a first warning message for otherwise unproblematic and potentially new editors? It makes you seem short-tempered, which I'm sure you're not. Thank you! Ivan (talk) 14:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Lists of Glagolitic inscriptions moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Lists of Glagolitic inscriptions. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Boleyn (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm confused. It is a list of lists. More than a disambiguation page, but less than an article. It will likely never have sources, except intermittently. See Lists of Glagolitic manuscripts for its manuscript counterpart. For an older precedent, see Lists of New Testament minuscules. These are simply articles that have grown too long for MediaWiki to render efficiently and have had to be split. Sometimes new additions don't fit any of the subsumed lists, and the list of lists page has to be used instead, giving the list of lists itself sources. Could you move it back to mainspace, please? Ivan (talk) 20:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

John Mearsheimer bibliography moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to John Mearsheimer bibliography. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Boleyn (talk) 09:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of John Mearsheimer bibliography for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John Mearsheimer bibliography 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/John Mearsheimer bibliography until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

48JCL TALK 23:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. Hipal (talk) 20:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Please discuss on talk page before making substantial deletions of reliably sourced content, or provide more specific reasoning in your edit summaries. Ivan (talk) 21:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

The article in question was not marked with the relevant edit notices, nor was your Political views section deletion of content falling within those categories. But you could add b to the current edit notice if you like. Ivan (talk) 21:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

The article in question? You're missing the point. You appear most interested in WP:CT/EE topics, though you should be aware that you've encountered at least two others: WP:CT/AP and WP:CT/BLP. Please be extremely careful. --Hipal (talk) 01:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Please stop

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Note that adding promotional content, as you are doing, is similarly problematic. BLP requires consensus. --Hipal (talk) 17:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Sir, you have not once initiated a talk page discussion explaining how any of my edits were poorly referenced or how they violated any of the other broad policies you quoted. I have faithfully followed 1RR, and yet your last summary reads rv - this is getting ridiculous - BLP, NOT, POV problems - COI or fan appears likely. How could you assume I am a "fan"? Did you bother to read my annotations for Mearsheimer 1979, 1982a and 1982b? Do they look like the work of a devotee or like an objective summary of scholarly opinion to you, rhetorically speaking? I have already stated multiple times I have no Conflict of Interest. I do not know him. In fact, before I rescued the bibliography section I hardly even knew of him. I was in the middle of making substantial changes to the article. Admittedly, I probably should have put a sign up. But you spent a matter of mere seconds before reverting my section on Iranian nuclear deterrence, well-sourced enough to deserve a talk page discussion at least. One of the sources was the New York Times! He has written about nuclear vs conventional deterrence his entire career, and the article had nothing to do with him beyond opinions he gave in an academic setting. Minutes later, you slap me with a Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory.

I know you've been editing for almost two decades. You're probably in good standing with the community. I have followed AGF up to this point. But the evidence is flying in the face of my faith. All I want is to improve the article. Actually all I wanted was to rescue a bibliography, but when you spend two weeks gathering a comprehensive bibliography, you learn more about the subject, and now it feels irresponsible not to improve the article. Incidentally, "not improving the article" is exactly what you have accomplished there. No addition. Only reversion, reversion, reversion. Very little effort on the talk page. Then out of nowhere, "you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia". Ivan (talk) 17:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

You've been notified that the article is under multiple sanctions. You're not editing with care at all.

BLP requires consensus for inclusion. Independent sources are almost always required to avoid NOT and POV problems. --Hipal (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Can you please elaborate. What part of WP:NOT or WP:POV do you believe were violated? Ivan (talk) 17:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Please strike

I'm interested in improving this article. Are you? [6] --Hipal (talk) 02:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Removed, per request.

I know at this point I've pushed WP:CIVIL. You've pushed WP:CIVIL (COI or fan appears likely). Can you please engage in the discussion on the article's talk page? It's not a good practice to go silent after double reversion. Nothing I added merited speedy removal by any standards, WP:BLP or otherwise. Everything is covered by policy enough for inclusion, even if revision is needed. And even that is thanks to a very strict interpretation of WP:OR and MOS:EDITORIAL. On the talk page I explained why neither your WP:SOAP nor your WP:PROMO were justified. I can't revise if my every edit is reverted. Surely you can't have read all 4 paragraphs before reverting it within seconds? Ivan (talk) 05:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for striking the material.

You're unlikely to create any consensus if you continue to struggle with focusing on content and policy. --Hipal (talk) 16:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Nowhere does WP:FOC add "and policy". Focus on article content during discussions. I have asked you several times now to provide reasoning from clauses or sentences within the policies you have cited, mainly in your edit summaries. This has gone on for two weeks now. I'm a human being. You're a human being. I'm trying to improve the article. WP:AGF, you're just trying to keep the article free of policy violations. I don't believe any of my edits violated policy. I have argued as much on the talk page. You've made 7 reversions, but only 5 comments on the talk page, without referencing any cited policies. So if we focus on policy, you can see how it appears WP:TENDENTIOUS? Ivan (talk) 17:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe any of my edits violated policy. If so, then I suggest you walk away from the article. Continuing with the approach you've taken will likely result in sanctions against you. --Hipal (talk) 20:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I have left an important proposal for you at Talk:John Mearsheimer. Please reply there. Ivan (talk) 20:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Again, at best, I don't think your approach will be fruitful. --Hipal (talk) 16:59, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:AGF please?[7] Please strike. I don't believe I've ever commented on your motives, and we started this discussion because you directly questioned mine. --Hipal (talk) 19:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

It was in response to In my experience, you'll be wasting everyone's time. Wikipedia is collaborative and consensus-based, and you appear to be trying to avoid both. Ivan (talk) 20:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

What's your point? You may want to look at WP:AGF before you comment further. --Hipal (talk) 21:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Cirsium × juratzkae moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Cirsium × juratzkae. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because too much has gone wrong in the references. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. UtherSRG (talk) 01:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Cirsium × przybylzkii moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Cirsium × przybylzkii. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because too much has gone wrong with the references. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. UtherSRG (talk) 01:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Cirsium × reichardtii moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Cirsium × reichardtii. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because too much has gone wrong with the references. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. UtherSRG (talk) 01:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Cirsium × scopolii moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Cirsium × scopolii. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because too much has gone wrong with the references. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. UtherSRG (talk) 01:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Cirsium × stiriacum moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Cirsium × stiriacum. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because too much has gone wrong with the references. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. UtherSRG (talk) 01:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Cirsium × stroblii moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Cirsium × stroblii. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because too much has gone wrong with the references. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. UtherSRG (talk) 01:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

thank you for creating John Mearsheimer bibliography

I see on your edits page, that you used Citation bot to format my plain text bibliography of Mearsheimer into a wiki-format, and then you transferred this bibliography to separate article John Mearsheimer bibliography. Thank you for doing this. I also created a similar list of publications for John B. Goodenough, who received in 2019 a Nobel Prize for his contributions to the development of lithium-ion batteries, and who recently passed away. Could you please help me to format Goodenough's references into the same format, that you used for Mearsheimer? Walter Tau (talk) 15:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

It would be my pleasure! I can start it, but I will need your help to finish it (especially organising into sections by topic). Ivan (talk) 16:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I did it manually instead of using Citation bot, so this process may last an hour even with my replacement method. Ivan (talk) 16:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

John B. Goodenough bibliography moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to John B. Goodenough bibliography. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because For certain this is very incomplete as he published for another 25 years. Beyond this, I am very, very dubious about this page since all his articles are already on Google Scholar, which also has the other authors and links to the papers. I think your should improve and try the AfC route instead. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:John B. Goodenough bibliography has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:John B. Goodenough bibliography. Thanks! Ldm1954 (talk) 16:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

July 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  UtherSRG (talk) 00:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello! Isn't this a little extreme? Blocking without discussion (beyond templates with "custom reason")? I have never edit warred and stray away from disruptive editing. For the block, this distills to splitting the history, which I had no idea was an issue in this case. You could have notified me of that on my talk page. As difficult as it may be for you to have to move these pages back, with my poor Internet connection it is almost infinitely more difficult for me to move pages to mainspace. I have absolutely no intention of repeating this now that I know about the error it causes, and since you moved it back a second time, I would not have moved it back again without discussion. Ivan (talk) 00:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Splitting the history via copy-paste move, and ignoring my previous requests for you to fix the unusable references, which was the reason the articles were draftified in the first place. Take some time to formulate how you will address fixing the references, then when the block expires, fix them. - If you make an unblock request, another admin may have additional words to help keep you from straying. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Ignoring my previous requests for you to fix the unusable references. You never explained how. I assumed it was because the length of the references section clashed with the layout of the taxonbar. Can you please elaborate as to how the references are "unusable"? More importantly, since I have shown no signs of edit warring beyond 1RR, can you unblock me yourself and discuss this in a civil manner? Ivan (talk) 01:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Cirsium × stiriacum moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Cirsium × stiriacum. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because you split the history by doing a copy/paste move from draft. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. UtherSRG (talk) 00:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I understand your objection to copy/paste moves, which I was unaware were problematic in the case of articles for which I was the sole contributor, but am now. But it is a poor translation is your opinion of a single paragraph within the article, which is probably better to discuss on the talk page. If you object with unusable references need to be fixed to including the inclusion of quotations from the public domain descriptions of the hybrids, why not just delete everything after "quote="? Then explain your reasoning on the talk page. I don't actually rely in the article on more than 1-2 sentences from those quotations yet, and the reason I had included them in the first place was so that I could expand the article from them, which is exactly what would have happened had you waited a day. Ivan (talk) 01:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Cirsium × juratzkae moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Cirsium × juratzkae. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it is a poor translation and failure to fix the unusable references and splitting the history. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. UtherSRG (talk) 00:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Draft (Is this what you had in mind?)

Иованъ
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Plantae
Clade:	Tracheophytes
Clade:	Angiosperms
Clade:	Eudicots
Clade:	Asterids
Order:	Asterales
Family:	Asteraceae
Genus:	Cirsium
Species:	C. × juratzkae
Binomial name
Cirsium × juratzkae Reichardt ex Heimerl

Cirsium × juratzkae (Cirsium greimleri × heterophyllum) is a hybrid between C. greimleri and C. heterophyllum.

It is known from 58 herbarium specimens as of 2020.

Distribution

It is found in the Rottenmann and Wölz Tauern, Schladming Tauern, Seckau Tauern, and Lavanttal Alps.

Description

Although the growth is more similar to C. heterophyllum and the flowers more similar to C. greimleri, the leaves of the hybrids are intermediate between both parents, with significant variation. But two forms are known.

History

It was named after Jakob Juratzka. It was described it as one of the most "stately and beautiful" hybrids by Heinrich Wilhelm Reichardt, who identified it in 1861 near Bretstein and near Breitenau am Hochlantsch, both at 1400 m.

See also

• List of Cirsium species

References

References

Cirsium × przybylzkii moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Cirsium × przybylzkii. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it is a poor translation and failure to fix the unusable references and splitting the history. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. UtherSRG (talk) 00:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Draft (Is this what you had in mind?)

Иованъ
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Plantae
Clade:	Tracheophytes
Clade:	Angiosperms
Clade:	Eudicots
Clade:	Asterids
Order:	Asterales
Family:	Asteraceae
Genus:	Cirsium
Species:	C. × przybylzkii
Binomial name
Cirsium × przybylzkii Eichenfeld

Cirsium × przybylzkii (Cirsium greimleri × oleraceum) is a hybrid between Cirsium greimleri and Cirsium oleraceum.

It is known from 16 herbarium specimens as of 2020.

Distribution

It is found in the Rottenmann and Wölz Tauern, Schladming Tauern, Seckau Tauern, Lavanttal Alps, and Karawanks.

Description

Cirsium greimleri dominates flower traits, albeit with intermediate colour. C. oleraceum and C. greimleri alternately dominate leaf traits, sometimes with intermediate traits such as a C. oleraceum like form with C. greimleri idumentum.

History

Identified by pharmacist B. Przybylski on 20 July 1885, after whom Michael Ritter von Eichenfeld named it.

See also

• List of Cirsium species

References

References

Cirsium × reichardtii moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Cirsium × reichardtii. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it is a poor translation and failure to fix unusable references and splitting the history. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. UtherSRG (talk) 00:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Draft (Is this what you had in mind?)

Extended content

Иованъ Scientific classification Kingdom: Plantae Clade: Tracheophytes Clade: Angiosperms Clade: Eudicots Clade: Asterids Order: Asterales Family: Asteraceae Genus: Cirsium Species: C. × reichardtii Binomial name Cirsium × reichardtii Juratzka Cirsium × reichardtii (Cirsium greimleri × palustre) is a hybrid between C. greimleri and C. palustre. It is known from 38 herbarium specimens as of 2020. Distribution It is found in the Rottenmann and Wölz Tauern, Schladming Tauern, Seckau Tauern, Lavanttal Alps, and Karawanks. Description The flowers tend to appear close to C. greimleri, but there is variation between individuals closer to C. greimleri and individuals closer to C. palustre. See also List of Cirsium species References References

Cirsium × scopolii moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Cirsium × scopolii. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it is a poor translation and unusable references need to be fixed, and history was split via copy/paste. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. UtherSRG (talk) 00:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Draft (Is this what you had in mind?)

Иованъ
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Plantae
Clade:	Tracheophytes
Clade:	Angiosperms
Clade:	Eudicots
Clade:	Asterids
Order:	Asterales
Family:	Asteraceae
Genus:	Cirsium
Species:	C. × scopolii
Binomial name
Cirsium × scopolii E. Khek. ex Leuter et Zeitler

Cirsium × stiriacum (Cirsium erisithales × greimleri) is a hybrid between C. erisithales and C. greimleri.

It is known from 48 herbarium specimens as of 2020.

Distribution

It is found almost throughout the range of C. greimleri.

Description

Traits are thoroughly mixed.

History

First identified on 13 July 1845 by Tommasini or more likely one of his collectors on Snežnik. But its first written mention dates to 1856. The first binary name published, C. × scopolii Sch.Bip. ex Nyman (1879), is a nomen nudum, which also applies to C. × scopolianum Sch.Bip. ex Focke (1881), making the first currently valid name that published by Khek in 1908.

See also

• List of Cirsium species

References

References

Cirsium × stroblii moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Cirsium × stroblii. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it is a poor translation and unusable references need to be fixed, and history was split via copy/paste move. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. UtherSRG (talk) 00:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Draft (Is this what you had in mind?)

Иованъ
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Plantae
Clade:	Tracheophytes
Clade:	Angiosperms
Clade:	Eudicots
Clade:	Asterids
Order:	Asterales
Family:	Asteraceae
Genus:	Cirsium
Species:	C. × stroblii
Binomial name
Cirsium × stroblii Hayek

Cirsium × stroblii (Cirsium greimleri × spinosissimum) is a hybrid between C. greimleri and C. spinosissimum.

3 herbarium specimens as of 2020.

Distribution

It is found only in the Rottenmann and Wölz Tauern, although the range overlap extends to nearby ranges.

Description

There are few specimens, but it is close in appearance to C. heterophyllum × spinosissimum, differring in having broader leaves with short lobes, without tomentose undersides.

History

Identified by August von Hayek in the summer of 1906 from a specimen collected on the slopes of a ravine that feeds the Großer Bösenstein lake by Gabriel Strobl in 1867.

See also

• List of Cirsium species

References

References

Appeal of block administered without warning

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

I have been an editor for years without controversy apart from one recent issue resulting from my unfamiliarity with certain BLP guidelines, but was blocked without prior warning, it seems, for improper Draft>AfC>Mainspace procedure, following what I thought was an acceptable Draft>Mainspace alternative (admittedly resulting in page history errors I was unaware of) as I had understood moving the page back was an acceptable alternative from @Queen of Hearts' comment, "per WP:DRAFTOBJECT, you are free to move a draftifed page back to mainspace" in this exchange. My mistake was in moving it via copy-paste, which I was unaware at the time was problematic in cases where I was the sole contributor. The only other reason given for the block when I inquired (above) was a reference to a vague, "custom" instruction too much has gone wrong with the references made several weeks ago, with little explanation beyond that; I had assumed it to mean one thing, but clearly it turned out to be another. Now that I have been made aware, I would not under any circumstances consider continuing to skip the AfC procedure if that is what this administrator requires, since a discussion has ensued and the WP:CIVIL thing to do is to resolve these issues on the talk pages. I have never edit warred in the formal sense, nor even gone beyond a single revert without believing that I had resolved the issue in the eyes of the objecting editor. I fully intend to show this same respect for procedure in the case brought to my attention regarding the moving of pages between Draftspace and Mainspace. I would have responded the same to a warning, or even a simple talk page message. Therefore, I believe a block is unmerited, and a 2 week block is PUNITIVE. Ivan (talk) 01:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC) Ivan (talk) 01:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

And just in case it is not clear, I am not using WP:DRAFTOBJECT in my objection to the block, although the wording other editors, including the author of the page, but excluding editors with a conflict of interest, have a right to object to draftifying the page. If an editor raises an objection, move the page back to mainspace and, if necessary, list it at AfD does seem to indicate that

• 1) My move of the page from Draftspace back to Mainspace was in order
• 2) The conflict of interest clause prevents the blocking editor from moving it back, as @UtherSRG did. Unless "conflict of interest" in this case refers to WP:COI, which it well could (the relevant policy page is unfortunately not linked to in that guideline, making it one of many ambiguous clauses in existing policy).

I tried actually moving a draft page to mainspace once and couldn't do it, so I assumed that wasn't possible. I can't remember what my problem was, and being blocked at this very moment, I have no means of carrying out the experiment again. Unrelated to blocking-unblocking procedure, how does one carry the history over from Draftspace to Mainspace if not through AfC (not that I am going to skip AfC for these pages, but I do want to understand what Queen of Hearts was referring to)? Whatever the case, with the wording of DRAFTOBJECT, surely one can see the reason for my confusion. Ivan (talk) 01:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Rather, per the deterrence is based upon the likelihood of repetition clause of WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE, I am appealing this block on the grounds that, based on my record so far, the chances of repeating the ~error of not moving from Draftspace to Mainspace using AfC (because I still don't know how to move a page from draftspace to mainspace), and the very real error of performing a copy-paste move, are 0 now that I have been informed of the issue. All other reasons cited were custom cases not detailed clearly anywhere in Wikipedia policy known to me† to the extent that would justify draftifying. But again, as always, I remain committed to reaching consensus on the talk page regarding those points, and neither had nor have any intention of resolving the issues that resulted in the articles' redraftification through any means other than WP:CONSENSUS.

† Admittedly, a very small corpus.

Finally, given the clause accounts used exclusively for disruption may be blocked indefinitely without warning in WP:DISRUPTONLY is the only case for which the customary warning merited by WP:BEFOREBLOCK can be deferred, barring active disruption which was not the case since the block came fully 22 minutes after my last edit, it is troubling that the blocking admin would consider this account "used exclusively for disruption". Perhaps this is an effect of the appearance of my talk page, or the lack of a user page? From my perspective, it is difficult to see how multi-year efforts like List of Glagolitic inscriptions (16th century),† multi-month efforts like List of caves of Zagrebačka gora, Cirsium greimleri or more standard, often month-long efforts like Veternica (cave) and Veternica bibliography, Angular Glagolitic, Pre-Greek substrate bibliography, Pazinčica, Blagaj Castle and Krka (Adriatic Sea), to name a few, could fall under disruption. Looking at my contributions, it should be obvious I am Here to build an encyclopedia.

† Or the unfinished, unpolished List of Glagolitic printed works and Lists of Glagolitic manuscripts, the latter taking over a decade to compose.

I bear no ill will towards the blocking admin and wish to work together with him to improve the hybrid pages by bringing them into conformity with both policy and his additional criteria, as soon as he provides more detail as to what exactly he wants changed. But at the moment, this block is preventing me from improving an unrelated article.

Sincerely, Ivan (talk) 04:46, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I have been an editor for years without controversy apart from one recent issue resulting from my unfamiliarity with certain [[WP:BLP|BLP]] guidelines, but was blocked without prior warning, it seems, for improper Draft>AfC>Mainspace procedure, following what I thought was an acceptable Draft>Mainspace alternative (admittedly resulting in page history errors I was unaware of) as I had understood moving the page back was an acceptable alternative from @[[User:Queen of Hearts|Queen of Hearts]]' comment, "per [[WP:DRAFTOBJECT]], you are free to move a draftifed page back to mainspace" in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Queen_of_Hearts/Archive_9 this] exchange. My mistake was in moving it via copy-paste, which I was unaware at the time was problematic in cases where I was the sole contributor. The only other reason given for the block when I inquired (above) was a reference to a vague, "custom" instruction '''too much has gone wrong with the references''' made several weeks ago, with little explanation beyond that; I had assumed it to mean one thing, but clearly it turned out to be another. Now that I have been made aware, I would not under any circumstances consider continuing to skip the AfC procedure if that is what this administrator requires, since a discussion has ensued and the [[WP:CIVIL]] thing to do is to resolve these issues on the talk pages. I have never edit warred in the formal sense, nor even gone beyond a single revert without believing that I had resolved the issue in the eyes of the objecting editor. I fully intend to show this same respect for procedure in the case brought to my attention regarding the moving of pages between Draftspace and Mainspace. I would have responded the same to a warning, or even a simple talk page message. Therefore, I believe a block is unmerited, and a 2 week block is [[WP:NOPUNISH|PUNITIVE]]. [[User:Иованъ|Ivan]] ([[User talk:Иованъ|talk]]) 01:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC) [[User:Иованъ|Ivan]] ([[User talk:Иованъ|talk]]) 01:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC) And just in case it is not clear, I am not using [[WP:DRAFTOBJECT]] in my objection to the block, although the wording <q class="inline-quote-talk ">other editors, including the author of the page, but excluding editors with a conflict of interest, have a right to object to draftifying the page. If an editor raises an objection, move the page back to mainspace and, if necessary, list it at AfD</q> does <em >seem</em> to indicate that * 1) My move of the page from Draftspace back to Mainspace was in order * 2) The <q class="inline-quote-talk ">conflict of interest</q> clause prevents the blocking editor from moving it back, as @[[User:UtherSRG|UtherSRG]] did. Unless "conflict of interest" in this case refers to [[WP:COI]], which it well could (the relevant policy page is unfortunately not linked to in that guideline, making it one of many ambiguous clauses in existing policy). I tried actually <em >moving</em> a draft page to mainspace once and couldn't do it, so I assumed that wasn't possible. I can't remember what my problem was, and being blocked at this very moment, I have no means of carrying out the experiment again. Unrelated to blocking-unblocking procedure, how does one carry the history over from Draftspace to Mainspace if not through AfC (not that I am going to skip AfC for these pages, but I do want to understand what Queen of Hearts was referring to)? Whatever the case, with the wording of DRAFTOBJECT, surely one can see the reason for my confusion. [[User:Иованъ|Ivan]] ([[User talk:Иованъ|talk]]) 01:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC) Rather, per the <q class="inline-quote-talk ">deterrence is based upon the likelihood of repetition</q> clause of [[WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE]], I am appealing this block on the grounds that, based on my record so far, the chances of repeating the ~error of not moving from Draftspace to Mainspace using AfC (because I still don't know how to <em >move</em> a page from draftspace to mainspace), and the very real error of performing a copy-paste move, are 0 now that I have been informed of the issue. All other reasons cited were custom cases not detailed clearly anywhere in Wikipedia policy known to me† to the extent that would justify draftifying. But again, as always, I remain committed to reaching consensus on the talk page regarding those points, and neither had nor have any intention of resolving the issues that resulted in the articles' redraftification through any means other than [[WP:CONSENSUS]]. :† <span style="font-size:85%;">Admittedly, a very small corpus.</span> Finally, given the clause <q class="inline-quote-talk ">accounts used exclusively for disruption may be blocked indefinitely without warning</q> in [[WP:DISRUPTONLY]] is the only case for which the customary warning merited by [[WP:BEFOREBLOCK]] can be deferred, barring active disruption which was not the case since the block came fully 22 minutes after my last edit, it is troubling that the blocking admin would consider this account "used exclusively for disruption". Perhaps this is an effect of the appearance of my talk page, or the lack of a user page? From my perspective, it is difficult to see how multi-year efforts like [[List of Glagolitic inscriptions (16th century)]],† multi-month efforts like [[List of caves of Zagrebačka gora]], ''[[Cirsium greimleri]]'' or more standard, often month-long efforts like [[Veternica (cave)]] and [[Veternica bibliography]], [[Angular Glagolitic]], [[Pre-Greek substrate bibliography]], [[Pazinčica]], [[Blagaj Castle]] and [[Krka (Adriatic Sea)]], to name a few, could fall under disruption. Looking at [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/%D0%98%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%8A my contributions], it should be obvious I am [[Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia|Here to build an encyclopedia]]. :† <span style="font-size:85%;">Or the unfinished, unpolished [[List of Glagolitic printed works]] and [[Lists of Glagolitic manuscripts]], the latter taking over a decade to compose.</span> I bear no ill will towards the blocking admin and wish to work together with him to improve the hybrid pages by bringing them into conformity with both policy and his additional criteria, as soon as he provides more detail as to what exactly he wants changed. But at the moment, this block is preventing me from improving an unrelated article. Sincerely, [[User:Иованъ|Ivan]] ([[User talk:Иованъ|talk]]) 04:46, 23 July 2024 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I have been an editor for years without controversy apart from one recent issue resulting from my unfamiliarity with certain [[WP:BLP|BLP]] guidelines, but was blocked without prior warning, it seems, for improper Draft>AfC>Mainspace procedure, following what I thought was an acceptable Draft>Mainspace alternative (admittedly resulting in page history errors I was unaware of) as I had understood moving the page back was an acceptable alternative from @[[User:Queen of Hearts|Queen of Hearts]]' comment, "per [[WP:DRAFTOBJECT]], you are free to move a draftifed page back to mainspace" in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Queen_of_Hearts/Archive_9 this] exchange. My mistake was in moving it via copy-paste, which I was unaware at the time was problematic in cases where I was the sole contributor. The only other reason given for the block when I inquired (above) was a reference to a vague, "custom" instruction '''too much has gone wrong with the references''' made several weeks ago, with little explanation beyond that; I had assumed it to mean one thing, but clearly it turned out to be another. Now that I have been made aware, I would not under any circumstances consider continuing to skip the AfC procedure if that is what this administrator requires, since a discussion has ensued and the [[WP:CIVIL]] thing to do is to resolve these issues on the talk pages. I have never edit warred in the formal sense, nor even gone beyond a single revert without believing that I had resolved the issue in the eyes of the objecting editor. I fully intend to show this same respect for procedure in the case brought to my attention regarding the moving of pages between Draftspace and Mainspace. I would have responded the same to a warning, or even a simple talk page message. Therefore, I believe a block is unmerited, and a 2 week block is [[WP:NOPUNISH|PUNITIVE]]. [[User:Иованъ|Ivan]] ([[User talk:Иованъ|talk]]) 01:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC) [[User:Иованъ|Ivan]] ([[User talk:Иованъ|talk]]) 01:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC) And just in case it is not clear, I am not using [[WP:DRAFTOBJECT]] in my objection to the block, although the wording <q class="inline-quote-talk ">other editors, including the author of the page, but excluding editors with a conflict of interest, have a right to object to draftifying the page. If an editor raises an objection, move the page back to mainspace and, if necessary, list it at AfD</q> does <em >seem</em> to indicate that * 1) My move of the page from Draftspace back to Mainspace was in order * 2) The <q class="inline-quote-talk ">conflict of interest</q> clause prevents the blocking editor from moving it back, as @[[User:UtherSRG|UtherSRG]] did. Unless "conflict of interest" in this case refers to [[WP:COI]], which it well could (the relevant policy page is unfortunately not linked to in that guideline, making it one of many ambiguous clauses in existing policy). I tried actually <em >moving</em> a draft page to mainspace once and couldn't do it, so I assumed that wasn't possible. I can't remember what my problem was, and being blocked at this very moment, I have no means of carrying out the experiment again. Unrelated to blocking-unblocking procedure, how does one carry the history over from Draftspace to Mainspace if not through AfC (not that I am going to skip AfC for these pages, but I do want to understand what Queen of Hearts was referring to)? Whatever the case, with the wording of DRAFTOBJECT, surely one can see the reason for my confusion. [[User:Иованъ|Ivan]] ([[User talk:Иованъ|talk]]) 01:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC) Rather, per the <q class="inline-quote-talk ">deterrence is based upon the likelihood of repetition</q> clause of [[WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE]], I am appealing this block on the grounds that, based on my record so far, the chances of repeating the ~error of not moving from Draftspace to Mainspace using AfC (because I still don't know how to <em >move</em> a page from draftspace to mainspace), and the very real error of performing a copy-paste move, are 0 now that I have been informed of the issue. All other reasons cited were custom cases not detailed clearly anywhere in Wikipedia policy known to me† to the extent that would justify draftifying. But again, as always, I remain committed to reaching consensus on the talk page regarding those points, and neither had nor have any intention of resolving the issues that resulted in the articles' redraftification through any means other than [[WP:CONSENSUS]]. :† <span style="font-size:85%;">Admittedly, a very small corpus.</span> Finally, given the clause <q class="inline-quote-talk ">accounts used exclusively for disruption may be blocked indefinitely without warning</q> in [[WP:DISRUPTONLY]] is the only case for which the customary warning merited by [[WP:BEFOREBLOCK]] can be deferred, barring active disruption which was not the case since the block came fully 22 minutes after my last edit, it is troubling that the blocking admin would consider this account "used exclusively for disruption". Perhaps this is an effect of the appearance of my talk page, or the lack of a user page? From my perspective, it is difficult to see how multi-year efforts like [[List of Glagolitic inscriptions (16th century)]],† multi-month efforts like [[List of caves of Zagrebačka gora]], ''[[Cirsium greimleri]]'' or more standard, often month-long efforts like [[Veternica (cave)]] and [[Veternica bibliography]], [[Angular Glagolitic]], [[Pre-Greek substrate bibliography]], [[Pazinčica]], [[Blagaj Castle]] and [[Krka (Adriatic Sea)]], to name a few, could fall under disruption. Looking at [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/%D0%98%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%8A my contributions], it should be obvious I am [[Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia|Here to build an encyclopedia]]. :† <span style="font-size:85%;">Or the unfinished, unpolished [[List of Glagolitic printed works]] and [[Lists of Glagolitic manuscripts]], the latter taking over a decade to compose.</span> I bear no ill will towards the blocking admin and wish to work together with him to improve the hybrid pages by bringing them into conformity with both policy and his additional criteria, as soon as he provides more detail as to what exactly he wants changed. But at the moment, this block is preventing me from improving an unrelated article. Sincerely, [[User:Иованъ|Ivan]] ([[User talk:Иованъ|talk]]) 04:46, 23 July 2024 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I have been an editor for years without controversy apart from one recent issue resulting from my unfamiliarity with certain [[WP:BLP|BLP]] guidelines, but was blocked without prior warning, it seems, for improper Draft>AfC>Mainspace procedure, following what I thought was an acceptable Draft>Mainspace alternative (admittedly resulting in page history errors I was unaware of) as I had understood moving the page back was an acceptable alternative from @[[User:Queen of Hearts|Queen of Hearts]]' comment, "per [[WP:DRAFTOBJECT]], you are free to move a draftifed page back to mainspace" in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Queen_of_Hearts/Archive_9 this] exchange. My mistake was in moving it via copy-paste, which I was unaware at the time was problematic in cases where I was the sole contributor. The only other reason given for the block when I inquired (above) was a reference to a vague, "custom" instruction '''too much has gone wrong with the references''' made several weeks ago, with little explanation beyond that; I had assumed it to mean one thing, but clearly it turned out to be another. Now that I have been made aware, I would not under any circumstances consider continuing to skip the AfC procedure if that is what this administrator requires, since a discussion has ensued and the [[WP:CIVIL]] thing to do is to resolve these issues on the talk pages. I have never edit warred in the formal sense, nor even gone beyond a single revert without believing that I had resolved the issue in the eyes of the objecting editor. I fully intend to show this same respect for procedure in the case brought to my attention regarding the moving of pages between Draftspace and Mainspace. I would have responded the same to a warning, or even a simple talk page message. Therefore, I believe a block is unmerited, and a 2 week block is [[WP:NOPUNISH|PUNITIVE]]. [[User:Иованъ|Ivan]] ([[User talk:Иованъ|talk]]) 01:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC) [[User:Иованъ|Ivan]] ([[User talk:Иованъ|talk]]) 01:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC) And just in case it is not clear, I am not using [[WP:DRAFTOBJECT]] in my objection to the block, although the wording <q class="inline-quote-talk ">other editors, including the author of the page, but excluding editors with a conflict of interest, have a right to object to draftifying the page. If an editor raises an objection, move the page back to mainspace and, if necessary, list it at AfD</q> does <em >seem</em> to indicate that * 1) My move of the page from Draftspace back to Mainspace was in order * 2) The <q class="inline-quote-talk ">conflict of interest</q> clause prevents the blocking editor from moving it back, as @[[User:UtherSRG|UtherSRG]] did. Unless "conflict of interest" in this case refers to [[WP:COI]], which it well could (the relevant policy page is unfortunately not linked to in that guideline, making it one of many ambiguous clauses in existing policy). I tried actually <em >moving</em> a draft page to mainspace once and couldn't do it, so I assumed that wasn't possible. I can't remember what my problem was, and being blocked at this very moment, I have no means of carrying out the experiment again. Unrelated to blocking-unblocking procedure, how does one carry the history over from Draftspace to Mainspace if not through AfC (not that I am going to skip AfC for these pages, but I do want to understand what Queen of Hearts was referring to)? Whatever the case, with the wording of DRAFTOBJECT, surely one can see the reason for my confusion. [[User:Иованъ|Ivan]] ([[User talk:Иованъ|talk]]) 01:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC) Rather, per the <q class="inline-quote-talk ">deterrence is based upon the likelihood of repetition</q> clause of [[WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE]], I am appealing this block on the grounds that, based on my record so far, the chances of repeating the ~error of not moving from Draftspace to Mainspace using AfC (because I still don't know how to <em >move</em> a page from draftspace to mainspace), and the very real error of performing a copy-paste move, are 0 now that I have been informed of the issue. All other reasons cited were custom cases not detailed clearly anywhere in Wikipedia policy known to me† to the extent that would justify draftifying. But again, as always, I remain committed to reaching consensus on the talk page regarding those points, and neither had nor have any intention of resolving the issues that resulted in the articles' redraftification through any means other than [[WP:CONSENSUS]]. :† <span style="font-size:85%;">Admittedly, a very small corpus.</span> Finally, given the clause <q class="inline-quote-talk ">accounts used exclusively for disruption may be blocked indefinitely without warning</q> in [[WP:DISRUPTONLY]] is the only case for which the customary warning merited by [[WP:BEFOREBLOCK]] can be deferred, barring active disruption which was not the case since the block came fully 22 minutes after my last edit, it is troubling that the blocking admin would consider this account "used exclusively for disruption". Perhaps this is an effect of the appearance of my talk page, or the lack of a user page? From my perspective, it is difficult to see how multi-year efforts like [[List of Glagolitic inscriptions (16th century)]],† multi-month efforts like [[List of caves of Zagrebačka gora]], ''[[Cirsium greimleri]]'' or more standard, often month-long efforts like [[Veternica (cave)]] and [[Veternica bibliography]], [[Angular Glagolitic]], [[Pre-Greek substrate bibliography]], [[Pazinčica]], [[Blagaj Castle]] and [[Krka (Adriatic Sea)]], to name a few, could fall under disruption. Looking at [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/%D0%98%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%8A my contributions], it should be obvious I am [[Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia|Here to build an encyclopedia]]. :† <span style="font-size:85%;">Or the unfinished, unpolished [[List of Glagolitic printed works]] and [[Lists of Glagolitic manuscripts]], the latter taking over a decade to compose.</span> I bear no ill will towards the blocking admin and wish to work together with him to improve the hybrid pages by bringing them into conformity with both policy and his additional criteria, as soon as he provides more detail as to what exactly he wants changed. But at the moment, this block is preventing me from improving an unrelated article. Sincerely, [[User:Иованъ|Ivan]] ([[User talk:Иованъ|talk]]) 04:46, 23 July 2024 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}