User talk:Ceha/ Archive 7

Notice

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 Eastern Europe or the Balkans. 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.

Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:18, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Combining talk discussions

Please undo your recent edit at Talk:Turkish Croatia. It is normal to link to discussions, not copy them. Combining discussions should require editor consensus, especially if nobody else thinks this is a good idea. If you want to write a brief summary of whatever was concluded at the other page, you could do so. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I've recommended that Ceha and Santasa99 both be banned from the topic of Turkish Croatia, for long term edit warring, under the WP:ARBEE sanctions. I will leave the proposal open for a while to see if either of you wants to respond, and can offer a realistic plan for resolving the dispute in some other way. I have lost confidence in the way things are going on the talk page, since no progress is being made, and nobody can even offer an RfC. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 04:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --౪ Santa ౪^99° 01:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 15:12, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kingdom of Bosnia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ključ (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:Hrvatska Pavla Šubića.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Hrvatska Pavla Šubića.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

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

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 13:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

December 2019

Your recent editing history at Kingdom of Bosnia shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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. – bradv🍁 15:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

You are also edit warring at Banate of Bosnia and Bosnia (early medieval polity), in some cases in contravention of the consensus achieved on the talk page. This is getting quite disruptive. – bradv🍁 15:12, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}.  – bradv🍁 16:35, 4 December 2019 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I did not wiolate 3RR on any of the pages. Unfortunatelly, I did not see that brad warned me also on the Bosnia (early medieval polity), I thought that the warning was just for Kingdom and Banate. Čeha (razgovor) 16:50, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You don't have to violate 3RR to be determined to be edit warring. 3RR is a bright line, but you can be determined to have edit warred with fewer reverts, or if there are reverts over a longer period of time than 24 hours. Please read policy on edit warring for more information; to be unblocked, you will need to indicate that you understand this. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 17:00, 4 December 2019 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I understand that. I'm not trying to go into EW. I'm trying to discuss changes, any of my change is very well discussied. I'm also tring to compromise or discuss. I just didn't think that my actions have crossed the line... I'm sorry if they did. Čeha (razgovor) 17:16, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

To answer your question, I see no evidence after Bradv's warning that the other person kept the edit war going. Your comments in the section below indicate that you don't understand what is considered edit warring. Take this 24 hours, read up on edit warring and return to the discussion ready to find consensus (which does seem to be your goal). Barkeep49 (talk) 22:40, 4 December 2019 (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.

@Bradv: If I am block for edit war, why am I the only one? Why isn't Santasa blocked also? I'm trying to discuss my changes, using TP etc, trying to be constructive... Why am I the one being blocked? Why are always his versions (if both should be equal) the one which stays as current?--Čeha (razgovor) 21:57, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

The same rules should apply to all users. --Mateo K 01 (talk) 23:14, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@Mateo K 01: You are correct. However, because of Ceha's repeated problems, he is under an editing restriction for all the right reasons - as this fiasco has reaffirmed. Toddst1 (talk) 18:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Where is a repetition of problems?

Fiasco here is exaclty in what? Users who participated in Edit war, had more reverts, but were not punnished? --Čeha (razgovor) 20:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Q.E.D.. Bye Felisha. Toddst1 (talk) 23:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately very unfair behavior. --Čeha (razgovor) 23:54, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Please explain exactly what you feel is unfair. – bradv🍁 23:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

1. Santasa participated in edit war with same number of edits, and was not punished

2. All of the articles were "frozen" on his version.

3. Santasa made rv after the warning, yet was not punished (as I did)

4. I was trying to reach a compromise on all of the articles, I wrote a lot, and spend a lot of mine time, what was use of that? For example on Medieval entity we had 7 points of discord. I accepted arguments, we made a compromise on some of the points, but onto that we didn't get to discuss, they were all "frozen" on Santasa version. Even if I did explain my edits here, no one did change the article.

Last Santasa edit also made an error of adding data from the next time period (banate, not entity). I warned about that, no one reacted.

5. In most of the discussions Santasa declined discussion, and in it most of the time he just commented of my behavior, for which he was warned, but not punished.

It seems to me, that behavior to us was not equal.

I do not think that you are bias, rather that you saw us two as infighted children, and punish the one who was "at hand", but I would like to improve that articles and unfortinuately I am afraid that in this pace my stance will not been heard. --Čeha (razgovor) 01:05, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad you're not accusing me of being biased with respect to this topic area. When you and Santasa99 asked me for help on my talk page last week I saw an opportunity to help moderate the dispute rather than just start blocking people for edit warring. That I ended up having to do that anyway was a disappointment. At any rate, you are mistaken on several counts. We do not block people in order to punish them, we block them in order to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia. Santasa99 stopped reverting immediately after I gave them a warning, but if they had continued I would have blocked them too. Regarding your proposed edits to the pages, there is no rush. Present your proposed changes, with sources, and you can engage with the other participants to come up with the best version possible. I realize that being limited to one revert per week is going to make that a slow process, but that's okay - some of these topics are hundreds of years old. – bradv🍁 01:24, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

1RW doesn't change much. I was hoping to get a consesus, and to organize discussion. If this behavior continued, those topics would've been locked anyways. My intention is not to make problems on the encyclopedia, but to improve the articles.

The main problem is in the lack of the discussion. In this way, I'm affraid that there will not be any activity on talk pages, my edits will be reverted (no matter the sources), and in one month's time we will have another dispute resolution.

As for Santasa, I checked. You are right. His last edit is three minutes before he was warned. But he was warned an hour and a half latter than I. That's why I made an error. --Čeha (razgovor) 08:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ceha:, you really need to stop misrepresenting entire situation to editors and admins (@Bradv:) - for the first couple of months(!) you you refused to even respond to one of my numerous discussion initiation, you used edit-summary to dismiss my edits with short "vandalism", "reverting vandal" and such similarly rationalizations, and when you finally deigned to reply, you did it as if you are WMF president of the board or owner! From March to August you referred to my edits and my discussion initiations in such a manner that you barely escaped block from EdJohnston, who chose to warn you with clear explanation of what were you doing and what could happen if you continue. You started to respond on my discussion initiations sometime in August, and don't let me start on issues of civility and proper argumentation - that I began to discuss your behavior, even if not overly constructive, has its very good and very explainable reasons.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I am not the one who done that. Everything is recorded, so I realy do not see why are you dening it.

As for vandalism... that is very good description of your work on Turkish Croatia. If I'm not mistaken, you denied that even Bihać was part of medieval Croatia. But don't worry, as Donji Kraji is improved so will be and Turkish Croatia, and Bosnian states. --Čeha (razgovor) 20:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Who is going to improve all those articles, and how?--౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors, by sticking to the wikipedia politics. Donji Kraji are a good example and winning formula. No need to worry. Everything will be good at the end ;)--Čeha (razgovor) 00:33, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Your ARBMAC 1RR/week restriction is apparently still in place

Hello Ceha. Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2009#Macedonia:

Ceha (talk · contribs) blocked 2 weeks for a slow-moving edit war on Demographic history of Bosnia and Herzegovina. User subject to 1 revert per week on Balkan-related articles indefinitely as this is not the editor's first EW block on the topic. Toddst1 (talk) 20:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no notation elsewhere in WP:DSLOG, so I believe you are still under the indefinite 1RR/week restriction on all Balkan-related articles that was imposed in 2009. This was under the WP:ARBMAC discretionary sanctions. The logging administrator was User:Toddst1. If you believe the restriction is no longer needed, it can be appealed in the usual way. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:21, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: this was 10 years ago, and it should have been deleted a long time ago. --Čeha (razgovor) 21:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

The point of an indefinite ban is that it does not expire. If you want it lifted, you can appeal via WP:AC/DS#Appeals and modifications. You have recently been involved in some edit warring on nationalist topics which suggests to me that the ban may still be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 22:04, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: wait, I didn't broke any rule, I'm trying to be constructive, I'm writing pages and pages of data, and I'm trying to compromise, and rase the quality of articles. Look just how much I've done od Donji Kraji pages. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ceha/sandbox . I think I am acting very cooperativly.

@BradV: warned me about my behaviour on the topics, I stoped. This situation happened just as I didn't see the last warning. Again I'm trying to be a very cooperative. Why is my behavior being punished? Why am I in a ban, and the other side (with the exact number of reverts, and which is not willing to discuss it's changes) is not? And both versions should be equal?

And where did I showed any traces of nationalistic behaviour? Is objective behaviour a nationalism? --Čeha (razgovor) 22:18, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I am really disappointed that after all our conversations you still don't understand the issues with your behaviour. I could have blocked you for edit warring on this article a week ago, but instead I took the time to help moderate the dispute between you, and I thought we had made considerable progress. Now as soon as the protection ended, you started making the exact same edits as before, completely disregarding the discussion and the fact that the other editors disagree with you. I hope that things will be different when this block expires. – bradv🍁 22:30, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@BradV:, wait a minute. Which part of discussion had I disregarded? Can you give me some example? I just returned parts which are not yet agreed to my version, as both should be equal. I argumented those changes. See how much time I invested in making those articles, and discussing them.

Why am I the one being punished? Why is the other version better?

When you warned me, I stoped. I just didn't see the last warning, or I would've stoped even there, that should be obvious.

But you blocked me.

Why is every of that pages "frozen" on the Santasa version? Those are three diferent articles. And every one of them is saved on Santasa version.

And why didn't he also got banned, as he participated in the same behaviour?

I realy don't want to argue, I listened to your every suggestion and am trying to improve those articles.

You can see that I've accepted every part of compromise, and every suggestion you've made. --Čeha (razgovor) 22:56, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I'll give an example. In the edits you just made to Bosnia (early medieval polity) - what part do you feel has consensus? Judging from the conversation on the talk page, is there a consensus to call early medieval Bosnia a "vasal" state? Is there consensus to remove the label of "small country"? Is there consensus for removing the Fine source? – bradv🍁 23:03, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@BradV: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bosnia_%28early_medieval_polity%29&type=revision&diff=929253331&oldid=929252493

I didn't removed Fine because I think he is unreliable source. You can check my other edits, I didn't do anything with Fine there, even if I disagree with him. Till he is marked as unreliable by consensus, I think he can stay. I removed the whole line which quotes Fine, because it is about the other period (Banate of Bosnia), and not early medieval policy. See;

At the end of 12th century, the Banate of Bosnia emerged under its first ruler Ban Borić. After Ban Kulin Bosnia was by practical means a independent state, but that was constantly challenged by Hungary who tried to reestablish its authority.<ref>

Different period, different state.

As for small country, I am the one which puted that label, I didn't remove it. It's in DAI, and I just returned it. I could have been wrong there with references, maybe it should be qouted differently, but it shouldn't be removed. It's valid source, although there is no consensus, and till it's reached, I think it should stay.

As for vassalage, there is similar reasoning. We do not have consensus, but we do not have any sources which describe Bosnia as independent country. We have sources which claims (for example DAI) that it's under foreign soverenity (in DAI example, it's a Serbian one). My opinion was, till we reach consensus, that vassal state should remain. That's why I returned it.

Look how many things we reached consensus, and how many things I've changed, I didn't just roll back everything; https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bosnia_%28early_medieval_polity%29&type=revision&diff=929252493&oldid=928378454

I'm realy trying to be cooperative and to improve the article- --Čeha (razgovor) 23:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

So why didn't you explain this on the talk page? I get that you think you're improving the article, but if you only work against the other editors rather than with them the article will never actually improve. I believe I've linked you to this several times, but please read WP:BRD. – bradv🍁 23:50, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@BradV: I returned those parts on which ve hadn't reached consensus and expected we will continue our discussion about them, as we started;

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bosnia_%28early_medieval_polity%29&type=revision&diff=929124478&oldid=929100320

After that, Mhare removed vassal and small country https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bosnia_%28early_medieval_polity%29&type=revision&diff=929139190&oldid=929124478 and Santasa removed LJPD and added the part about later period; https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bosnia_%28early_medieval_polity%29&type=revision&diff=929237661&oldid=929139190

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bosnia_%28early_medieval_polity%29&type=revision&diff=929240950&oldid=929237661 I asked them to discuss those changes on TP, I expected that they have some idea or arguments, and why they've done those changes. I expected some explanation for their behavior. I realy didn't ment to argue, or start a war.

You are right, I've could have written my arguments, but they were the ones who were going against consensus, so I expected comments from them... That is my error, that's true. --Čeha (razgovor) 00:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ceha: @Mateo K 01: @Bradv: @EdJohnston: @Mhare: I thought that we are going to sleep through and cool our heads over this, but this, this is a staggering amount of dishonesty and disregard for the project's very spirit and governing principles, both in quantity and quality - I swear to you, I won't get warned again let alone get blocked over this abuse. This isn't a problem that started week or two weeks ago, not even month or two months ago, it's a problem which emerged back in February/March, culminating over merger disruption and meatpuppetry in August, and dragged itself to December. I will ask editor Mhare to compile a report on Ceha's edits across the articles few hours prior to his block, which was sheer and deliberate disruption (and baiting), so that I have time to compile one of my own regarding meatpuppetry, specifically through a solicitation of help, support and vote from the outside of English language Wikipedia, namely hr.wikipedia, to which several editors from that project, including Ceha, Mateo K 01, Silverije, and one of that project most active and most abusive admis, responded.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 08:40, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@BradV: @EdJohnston: and the user Santasa is continuing to comment on me? My explanation for edits he just skiped. Is that constructive behavior? --Čeha (razgovor) 09:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@Santasa99:, please do. Do the similiar analysis of your behavior. --Čeha (razgovor) 09:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

You were defending yourself by inciting admin to block me, and now you unscrupulously lamenting my reply !?--౪ Santa ౪^99° 09:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

No. You were involved in edit war, and your behavior was/is... Well it's obvious. I'm curious why you were not punished for it. Everything should be transparent, right?

Look at your behavior, how many times have you called my name. How many times were you warned not to. And you are doing it still. I'd like to no why you aren't punished for it, yes. --Čeha (razgovor) 09:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

It was very tiresome. I didn't recognize Ceha intention on improving article, because he was just following my edits and changing my wording. Firstly, I didn't made up those sentences, most of them are copied and adapted from various Wikipedia articles about Bosnian bans and kings (at least 3 of them are official Good Articles!). He should than go to every other article and change wording - whatever that means. It meant that he changed for example: Bosnian history to history in Bosnia (1), putting adjective self to coronation, changing Kingdom of Bosnia and word Bosnia to state, Bosnian to his and etc (2). And when I found those edits disruptive, he was adamant and kept reverting. I was going to add a lot of more content to the article, but edit warring stopped me. Other edits where he is changing wording are (here, here). Also, we had a couple of noticeboards - Dispute resolutions (here, and here with other editors), and now we have questioning of Fine as a source also. Mhare (talk) 09:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

What's wrong in questioning Fine? Is that standard Wikipedian process? His book is critisied.

Discusion about Donji Kraji https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Donji_Kraji resulted in improvment of the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ceha/sandbox , in which I invested a lot of time, made new maps... Article in the previous state was quite a mess.

I'm trying to improve the article of White Croatia, did I broke any rule there https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#White_Croatia ?

As for your work, you didn't put any sign that you were working with the articles, or that you are in the middle of the work.

Diference between edits on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banate_of_Bosnia&diff=929234823&oldid=929232424&diffmode=source

1. I added time stamp for most of it's existance. to the de facto independence, because there were periods of outside rule.

2. the king didn't recive the crown from the pope or imperor, he crowned himself.

3. Bosnian church was christian

4. in 1136. Bella did invade upper Bosnia, that was the core of the future state.

5. Kulin brokered peace, not the state itself.

6. area, and mountains that was future rephrased.

7. he was an vassal, not just an ally.

8. the name is Bosnian banate, and it was a vassal, not just an ally

9. Stephen had a daughter, which was married to Hungarian king, he didn't die childless. He just didn't had a male hair, so his nephew (Tvrtko I) inherited him.

10. etc. Majority of the edits you did accepted, or we managed to compromise, and at the end, only this was disputable; https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banate_of_Bosnia&type=revision&diff=929242193&oldid=929240822 vassalage, and short (Bosnia or Banate) or long/full name of the state (Bosnian Banate). --Čeha (razgovor) 09:51, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

ps. I did everything in good faith, and tried to improve the article. I always looked for consensus and tried to found the middle grounds. --Čeha (razgovor) 09:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

pps. Maybe it is cherry picking, but I like to be precise in some things, and I think that my changes improved the article. It should be obvious that I try to reach consensus, and that I've improved the articles. From Donji Kraji new maps to other changes. It should be ok that we do not share the same views, but that's why discussion pages and wikipedia procedures are here.

If there is doubt in Fine's book (and there is), than it should be discussed, that should be standard procedure. --Čeha (razgovor) 10:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Ceha, I didn't find your edits to be in good faith. This is something that is going on for over a week now, and its the same pattern. I may have thought you had it at first, but these noticeboards have changed my mind. You were essentially trolling me with those changes. I already documented above what kind of changes you were entering. If you believe you were right, please go to Tvrtko I and Thomas of Bosnia articles and make the same changes and let me know if they will be reverted.Mhare (talk) 10:20, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I realy do not understand your suggestion and the point of it? We had cca 10 things on which we disagreed. After the discussion we had only 3. Were is the trolling with that? If you wrote anything on the TP, I responded to you and took your POV into consideration. I wasn't trolling anybody.

Irony aside, if you think that those articles need further improvement, we can edit them also... --Čeha (razgovor) 10:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Ceha, try to change the wording, in the same manner, you did in Kingdom of Bosnia and Banate of Bosnia, and let me know how that goes. Mhare (talk) 10:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Mhare, if you and Santasa99 will not edit war, change the articles, I think there will be no problem in any change to stay. --Čeha (razgovor) 12:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Christ help us, infinite loop again! @Ceha, you were reverting edits while defending your case with admin while he was warning you with possible block!? You firmly believe that you solely have right to include edits or revert things without TP consensus, and expect form others to do the same only under condition of discussing theirs on the TP with you - for this, your edit-summaries are evidence on their own right - and even when others agreed to resolve problems in TP you were unable to restrain yourself form editing and reverting freely while participating in agreed TP discussion, with others who advisedly halted all edits at that point!? You have serious issues with this project and I won't suffer any further humiliation of being warned or block or dragged through the mud of infinite debates without end and resolution in sight on TP, AN, DRN, and whatever.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 10:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Facepalm. Santasa99, how many reverts did you have there? More than I? And you were not punished.

How many times were you warned to comment on the articles, and not the other users? And you were not punished.

I discussed one article with the moderator. I stop editing the article, when I was warned.

Then the moderator warned me about the second article. I stoped it also.

I didn't saw the third warning, or I would stop there also.

You were warned too, right? You even reverted this article after I got baned https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bosnia_%28early_medieval_polity%29&type=revision&diff=929253331&oldid=929252493

And you weren't punished.

Why?

I explained my changes of the article in this talk. The explanations (at least to my POV, and moderator behavior) are sound. You hadn't changed article back to that version. You hadn't explain why you did your changes. You just continued your edit war. Is that a normal behavior? --Čeha (razgovor) 12:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 10

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Donji Kraji (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Sana, Uskoplje, Kulin and Ključ

Bosnia (early medieval polity) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Kingdom of Croatia

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

1RR

With your edit at Bosnia (early medieval polity) here you are breaking your 1RR/week restriction. I hope it was a mistake and strongly advice you to self revert. --T*U (talk) 20:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Balkan view of 1RR

With two reverts (1 and 2) today you are breaking your ARBMAC 1RR/week restriction again. Friendly reminder. Mhare (talk) 20:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Ceha, you can ask for clarification what this meant for you:

Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2009#Macedonia:

::Ceha (talk · contribs) blocked 2 weeks for a slow-moving edit war on Demographic history of Bosnia and Herzegovina. User subject to 1 revert per week on Balkan-related articles indefinitely as this is not the ::editor's first EW block on the topic. Toddst1 (talk) 20:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Mhare (talk) 21:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Mentioned

Hello Ceha. Your name has been mentioned at Talk:Bosnia (early medieval polity) regarding possible canvassing on the Croatian Wikipedia. You may wish to reply there. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Donji Kraji, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ključ (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 15:17, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Bih 1941.GIF

Thank you for uploading File:Bih 1941.GIF. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:16, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bosnia (early medieval polity), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kingdom of Croatia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 16:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok. Čeha (razgovor) 06:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Donji Kraji

Hello, Ceha. I noticed you placed a response about new RfC options inside the already closed discussion. This is less than optimal for two reasons: First, closed RfC's are supposed to be left as-is to provide a record for future editing or dispute resolution. Second, most editors don't look inside closed RfC's for new comments. I suggest that you create a new section on the page and move your comments to that section. I like to refrain from moving other editor's talk page postings so I won't move them myself unless you ask. I hope this helps explain things. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:43, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Kingdom of Bosnia

I have blocked you from editing Kingdom of Bosnia for 3 months. The one-revert-per-week sanction applied to you is a restriction, not an entitlement. Making the same edit every week for months on end, with complete disregard for the discussion on the talk page, still constitutes edit warring.

You are still able to propose changes you want to make to the article on the talk page, provided you are willing to work toward consensus. If these issues persist on the talk page or on other articles in this topic area, the next step will be to ban you from all content regarding the Balkans and Eastern Europe. – bradv🍁 06:05, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are indefinitely banned from edits relating to Eastern Europe, including the Balkans, broadly construed.

You have been sanctioned in response to continuous slow motion edit-warring and repeated changing of content without attempt to obtain consensus for your edits. You were previously warned for this behaviour and blocked from editing Kingdom of Bosnia – this topic ban now extends to all content related to Eastern Europe, including talk pages.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. – bradv🍁 04:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement Appeal

Your appeal has been declined. Please apply in 6 months showing how you have worked collaboratively in areas of the encyclopedia outside of Eastern Europe. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)