User talk:Judist

November 2015

Greetings. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Philip II of Macedon, did not appear to be constructive and has been or will be reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 03:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a joke? Did you even check what the sources are? The world's most reputable universities. Unconstructive, no way. There is a template for additional verifications, so please do not prevent such a good verification. Judist (talk) 03:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Judist, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Judist! 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 peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Missvain (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:23, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Judist reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: ). Thank you. Dr. K. 20:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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. NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:45, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More discussion and less edit warring on these contentious topics, please. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

December 2015

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Philip II of Macedon. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 00:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the mistake correction.

My apologies, I didn't realized that the sources I have put on the page's brief Saints Cyril and Methodius are in fact already in use in other sections of the page. Thank you for reverting my edit, although later I may get some time and comfort to check the lower sections of the article about the brother's nationality and restore there any sources from my edit on the brief paragraph, especially if they are not really used in the page as claimed. Have a good day. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 16:07, 24 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

You didn't bother me. Thanks for abstaining from arguable points in the intro, have a good night. Judist (talk) 22:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Demographics of Greece.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Athenean (talk) 22:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source falsification and misleading edit-summaries

In this edit here [1] (and subsequent reverts), you reinstated without explanation the source Drews 1988, which another user explained was discredited (and provided sources to that effect). Not only that, but you changed the wording to "here is a general consensus that the coming of the Greek tribes occurred around 2100 BC though a later migration by sea from Anatolia has also been suggested." except there is absolutely no such consensus and you know it. This is blatant intellectual dishonesty. I strongly recommend you never do this again. Athenean (talk) 08:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016

This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian again, as you did at Talk:Demographics of Greece, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He/she may be in the wrong, but Iryna - are you an Admin? If so, where is the Admin template on your user page? You shouldn't post Administrative warnings like the above unless you actually have the authority. Hopefully yours, ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.67.182.113 (talk) 01:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no, I don't have to be an admin to post warnings... just an experienced user who knows their way around policies and guidelines. I suggest you do a little research into how the Wikipedia community works before making unfounded statements as to what is and what is not acceptable practice. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:08, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 2016

Your recent editing history at Macedonians (Greeks) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Dr. K. 06:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removing sourced material on flimsy excuses

You probably already know this, but WP:SAYWHERE is not meant to be used as an excuse to removed sourced material that you happen not to like. Athenean (talk) 05:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The material is unsourced since nobody is willing to provide a page. Stop with the source falsification. That some sourced statements bother you is not a justification for their removal. Judist (talk) 06:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The material is not unsourced, it just doesn't fit in with your ideology. Your grammar is also awful and incomprehensible. Oh, and a WP:3RR warning is due while we're at it. Athenean (talk) 06:30, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is due for us? By the way I didn't report you, when you violated it.Judist (talk) 06:45, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 2016 - Breaching of 3RR rule despite the previous warning - You have been reported on the Administrator's noticeboard

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war on Macedonians (Greeks) where you have continued with your disruptive edits in spite of previous warnings by the other users, and therefore, you have now been reported to the Administrator's noticeboard. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Macedonians (Greek). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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. Katie^talk 18:31, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 2016

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Demographics of Greece. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Dr. K. 15:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Demographics of Greece, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Dr. K. 15:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Dr. K. 15:51, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The data you replaced is from the International Minority Rights Group. This is data you placed. This has long been disputed at Talk:Demographics of Greece and the majority of the editors acknowledge this as sourced content and are in favor of keeping it.Judist (talk) 22:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have cited an unofficial source. Unofficial population estimes tend to be unreliable and by no means are supposed to replace population censuses and statistics. Cite from a better source, such as the Eurostat or the local authorities, if you have to. -- SILENTRESIDENT 01:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Demographics of Greece. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Don't abuse edit summaries accusing other editors of vandalism. Dr. K. 09:39, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 2016

Your recent editing history at Serbs shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Religion in the Republic of Macedonia

Hello Judist,

Please have a look on the talk page of the article "Religion in the Republic of Macedonia". This is the link

Talk:Religion in the Republic of Macedonia

Kind Regards,

Tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.78.132.143 (talk) 21:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about ancient Macedonia are covered by discretionary sanctions

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Balkans, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

I'm leaving you this new alert because the last one is more than a year old. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral editing

One of the reasons someone can be banned from a topic area is evidence that they can't edit neutrally, due to having strong opinions which they can't keep to themselves. As an administrator, when I read the language of your edit summaries at Ancient Macedonians it suggests to me you are on the edge of personal attacks. The tone of these words suggests you are very keen to have your personal POV reflected in articles and that you do not have the patience to work with others to create an impartial article:

01:45, 15 April 2017‎ Judist ... (Stop pushing your manipulative view to the lead. It represents one tendetous view. Follow WP:NPOV)
21:38, 14 April 2017‎ Judist ... (changed arbitrary distortion of the sources)
21:36, 14 April 2017‎ Judist ... (It is not accepted that Ancient Macedonian language was a Greek dialect. Restoring neutral lead form December before it became a pro-Greek fringe)

EdJohnston (talk) 17:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, EdJohnston. Dear Judist, you need to understand that there is a difference between the freedom of personal opinion and a responsible editorial conduct of which editorial bias and disruption can not be part. While you are free to believe whatever you want, as an editor you will have to comply with the project's rules and refrain from any forms of disruption like how you have done today in both the Ancient Macedonia and the Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia articles. Good day. --SILENTRESIDENT 21:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Johnston, and isn't balance neutral? Check who edits neutral, me or Silent? I think you got these suggests from too many false accounters, as the one that joined the discussion here without being invited. I have always insisted balance and neutralization, thus removed one view from a lead of a disputed topic. This is what is exactly neutral editing. If I am going to be topic banned, Silent Resident has more reasons to be banned, despite Silent's arrogant and manipulative allegations. Although hypocritically acting as polite to cover arrogancy, Silent continues nationalist editing in the Balkan topic, not me. Silent pushed a tendentious view that Ancient Macedonian language is a Greek dialect under and alleged as disruptive editors, who reverted the balanced version. If you are not well informed with the topic discussed, see the classification of Ancient Macedonian language and then you will see that another is the editor who doesn't follow neutral editing. Thank you for the alert and my very best wishes, I will try to be as patient as possible!

Silent Resident, I don't intend to be your dear, see WP:DONTBESUCHAPUSSY. You are clearly a hypocritical actor/actress and I don't want to be part of your acting, so stop posting on my talk page these nonsenses alleging me for being worse editor than you. If you won't soon stop disruption at least refrain.--Judist (talk) 00:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have closed your 3RR complaint and find that you do not seem to be taking on board the concerns about your lack of neutrality. You are on much safer ground when you can get others to agree in advance (on the talk page) to whatever text you want to add to the article. It is possible you will be topic banned if your judgment does not improve. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:00, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]