• Wikipedia:Template_index: Cleanup (#Neutrality_and_factual_accuracy, etc)
• Meta Category:Editor handbook

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 15 days are automatically archived 2 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 1.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Bosnian genocide denial into Milorad Dodik. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 14:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Diannaa, I was sort of aware of this but didn't know that it's required to do something in that regard. So, basically, this copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution would suffice and can be used as a template in edit-summary (if copied text is short or not substantial) and in TP (if there is a lot of copied text). I think that in this case - Bosnian genocide denial > Milorad Dodik - I am a sole contributor of copied text, and it is not particularly intricate narrative it's more of a listing, but if I understood correctly, in case of being sole contributor then, maybe, it could be unnecessary. Please, just to be on the safe side, let me know if I understood this correctly? Thanks again, and stay safe.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 15:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Santasa99. The edit summary is mandatory whether you place a template on the talk page or not. The talk page template is optional. You are correct that if you are the sole author, attribution is not required, but it's still helpful for patrolling admins if you do so. — Diannaa (talk) 15:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course, I know that edit summary is mandatory on its own, that's elemental, and yes, it could be that I have done it before. However I am not sure that I am able to remember where, but if I do I will put this temp to appropriate TP. Also, most likely, when and if i used bits of text from one article for writing in another, then, it was again probably my own. Anyhow, I will be sure to use it every time I am reusing any amount of text from now on. Cheers.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw this. If you ever are feeling a bit nervous about bringing a concern to XRV or another noticeboard, ping here or go to the user talk of any admin/other experienced user you are friendly with and ask for a reality check. Most editors experienced at noticeboards will be happy to take a look. Alternatively, ask at WP:Teahouse, it's not just for beginners but also for anyone who is doing something they haven't done before. Best to you, Valereee (talk) 16:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee I don't mind a delay a one bit because these are very useful suggestions, so I really appreciate it. (Yes, it is a matter of anxiety, raising a tension, especially for less noticeboard-experianced editor. I had a situation which I am trying to bury but it surfaces from time to time in my mind since I am quite convinced it was a foul-play.) Anyway, thank you for these suggestions. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Santasa99. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Bosnia in the Middle Ages".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Liz, I really appreciate it (I was unaware that this was a Template, but now I remember... .- ) ౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:21, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week 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 review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Aoidh (talk) 04:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]