User talk:Dr. Vicodine

Hello Dr. Vicodine, welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask where you are from? (84.187.181.26 (talk) 18:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC))[reply]

You should not attacka another user in comment box regadless of what there done you could be warned for it. Secondly i never changed anything not tha ti coudl see and oyur edit suggest nothing i done was changed.--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My writing is jumbled becaus ei am dsylexic not becaus ei type fast i cant fix errors when i dnt recongise them. I have not removed anything anything i remove is unsourced material nothing else, if i removed something it might have been by accident please explain wha ti removed. you comment where not as such as offence but the way you put it ie crawford bla bla can be seen as perosnal attack only trying to adivse you for future so you dnt offended someone who would get offended and report you.--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Known Unknowns (House), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.thrfeed.com/2009/10/dollhouse-scheduled-through-sweeps.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 08:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of Nip/Tuck episodes. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain why you think a season seven didn't exist with Nip/Tuck? All reliable sources prove it was the seventh season, not a continuing of the sixth. Could you make a season seventh season episode article? —Mike Allen 04:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a source file from Warner Bros. that says otherwise. Also there was a release from Warner Home Video Canada ([[1]]) that was recalled for some reason ([[2]]). I will not change anything for now. I guess we'll have to wait for the DVD release for a definite decision. I could make a seventh season episode article but on weekend, don't have time now for rearranging. If it turns up to be six seasons that will also need some heavy reverting. Cheers. Dr. Vicodine (talk) 19:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are going by what aired on TV, not what is released a year later on DVD. Please see the official page: http://www.fxnetworks.com/shows/originals/niptuck/episode.php?season=7 Notice that "season 7" at the end? TVGuide.com and The Futon Critic all recognize and verify the seventh season. Stuff on Wikipedia does not have to be "true", it just has to be verified by reliable sources to be included. No problem, no need to wait for the weekend to make the page, I can do it within minutes. Thank you. —Mike Allen 19:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a reason why the DVD wouldn't count as reliable source. Warner Bros, who produced the show, says that the sixth season is also the final season. DVD will come out on June 8 ([[3]], [[4]]) and is titled "Nip/Tuck: The Sixth and Final Season" and contains 19 episodes. I will change list of episodes to conform this. If you disagree, we can organize a vote on article talk section. Dr. Vicodine (talk) 22:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marketing. That's the reason. Why make two separate DVD's? I feel there are enough of reliable sources that verify it has season 7. I made the page, and sourced it (your page isn't sourced). We could say that it it was released on DVD as season 6 on the season 7 page? —Mike Allen 01:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to List of The Mentalist episodes. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 19:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Running Man Barnstar
		For your tireless contributions to articles related to Croatian football, I hereby award you The Running Man Barnstar. Keep up the good work! Timbouctou 19:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Timbouctou :) Dr. Vicodine (talk) 15:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page CSI: Crime Scene Investigation (season 11) worked, and it has been reverted or removed. However, if you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 21:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm curious about where you're getting information such as this. Is there an online source for it? Thanks, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I created the Template:NogometniMagazin which should be helpful when adding players' Croatian league stats. The usage instructions are on the page - just add the template and type in the player's ID number and the rest is automatic. The link displayed is article title by default, but in cases when there's some disambiguating addition in the title you can add the desired displayed name too. I went through a lot of players' articles recently and I got tired of constantly looking them up at Nogometni magazin in order to check for notability. This should make updating stats much easier. Timbouctou (talk) 22:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, great idea! This certainly makes things easier. What do you think about doing the same thing for national caps? The link would be http://www.hns-cff.hr/?ln=en&w=statistike&id=. Dr. Vicodine (talk) 05:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Use Template:CFF player for internationals. Happy editing :) Timbouctou (talk) 08:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Finally we have a standardized naming scheme for the stats. Dr. Vicodine (talk) 08:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, dude; I was just removing any links to Marnick Vermijl. If it makes you feel better, I'll remove all the redlinks from that article, since none of those players has any claim to notability. – PeeJay 09:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw what you were doing. But I still don't understand it. You selected one player, Vermijl who plays for Man Utd reserves, and decided to remove his every redlink. I would understand if you removed all the redlinks on the page, but from what I saw all the related pages have redlinks in these cases. Dr. Vicodine (talk) 14:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would like to know why you removed the column with the numbers of teams still active in European competitions 2011-2012. I am familiar with this information and at first sight, it seemed correct. (I had not checked it completly though) In my opinion it also contributes to the page, because one can see whether a country still has a chance to rise, which is important for the season 2013-2014. But I like to hear your opinion about this, so we can clear things and not become trapped in an infinite loop of undoing. Sincerly (KevinBobby (talk) 11:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I think it's enough that we have color scheme that points out which countries have teams in competition. That also gives some information which country has a possibility to rise, and if someone is interested in finding out more, they can always go to the source, e.g. Bert Kassies' website. Dr. Vicodine (talk) 13:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the colors are good too, but a country with 6/7 clubs still active or 1/7 has the same color. And that is a big difference. And I think that it is preferable to have one source, otherwise Wikipedia wouldn't have a purpose if you still have to search for more information. I think it's best that Wikipedia has as much information possible on topic. (KevinBobby (talk) 13:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Could you please explain the purpose of your most recent edits to The Playboy Club? You didn't leave an edit summary giving indication to what your edits were about, and as they were, they had the appearance of vandalism. I suspect that is why another editor reverted them. That revert has also been reverted, however, and it would be helpful to know whether or not your edits were verifiable. If you have a reference to provide, that would also be helpful. Would appreciate your input on this ASAP. Thanks. Lhb1239 (talk) 20:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's say it's taken from imdb. I won't edit there anymore, you can revert if you like. I see he has put a different pair of staff instead. See here for Kenny Ortega as director of episode 3, production wise, and synopsis of episode at nbc board. Dr. Vicodine (talk) 21:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No need for you to stop editing at that article. I did put your edits back in, as they were correct according to imdb (their episode and cast info for various productions is properly vetted and reliable). If you could put references in for where you obtained the production numbers, it would be helpful in keeping the correct information in the article. Thanks for your contributions there (I hope you don't run from the article just because of this one incident). Lhb1239 (talk) 22:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited List of HNK Rijeka seasons, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 1st (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove SR Croatia from countryofbirth parameters of modern-day players, because it basically inevitably leads to anonymous vandalism trying to replace Yugoslavia. This precise version is a tried compromise that largely works fine, and it's also accurate because SRH was indeed a country while it was part of SFRY. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I thought it was some compromise to just leave SFR Yugoslavia. What's better, to just leave it SR Croatia or SR Croatia, SFR Yugoslavia? Dr. Vicodine (talk) 09:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per guidelines, place and country of birth at the time of birth are obligatory when known (in this case, Yugoslavia). Other political subdivisions are optional, in the format seen at Andriy Shevchenko, Mišo Krstičević, etc. It has been a long-standing consensus among editors dealing with YU footy to just put in "Yugoslavia" but on some articles it attracts considerable vandalism so this compromise might help. Timbouctou (talk) 06:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, didn't see much vandalism concerning this but from now on I'll put SR Croatia too. Dr. Vicodine (talk) 07:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You contested the proposed deletion of this article on the grounds that the club had played in the Yugoslav Second League and the Yugoslav Club. Can you provide sources to confirm this? Thanks. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They have played in the Yugoslav Second League from 1971–72 to 1979–80 season [5]. Also they have reached the second round of the 1972–73 Yugoslav Cup [6]. Dr. Vicodine (talk) 20:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to UEFA website they have 30 games so stop reverting. Alex (talk) 13:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Official Prva HNL website says 24 games. This is the point where they've abandoned competition. It it also explained here [7]. Dr. Vicodine (talk) 13:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But their matches were not cancelled (as matches of Neuchâtel Xamax FC in Swiss Super League) and they received technical looses in last 6 matches so number of matches must be 30. Alex (talk) 13:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly states here that Varaždin gave up from the competition after 24th round. Until and if they change it, the table should reflect that. Dr. Vicodine (talk) 13:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly states here that Varaždin has 30 games. Until and if they change it, the table should reflect that. Alex (talk) 13:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Template:2011–12 Prva HNL league table. 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 would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop tagging the Euro 2012 pages with OR - per WP:CALC (on the WP:OR page) - "Routine calculations do not count as original research". see also the respective talk pages. thanks. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 13:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on UEFA Euro 2012 Group B. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on UEFA Euro 2012 Group C. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain why the title decided on goal AVERAGE in 1953 is relevant to an article on goal DIFFERENCE? Then, why you would ignore the other 3 titles decided in the same way in 1924, 1950 and 1965? Further, why do you persist in deleting examples of other lower division titles which actually were decided on goal difference and obviously are relevant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gusssss (talk • contribs) 15:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why wouldn't it be relevant? Dr. Vicodine (talk) 15:30, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about "Goal Difference", 1953 was decided on Goal Average. Those are not the same. In any case, if you think it's relevant why have you ignored the other years when the title was also decided on goal average? And why do you persistently delete other examples of titles decided on Goal Difference, which you presumably would accept are definitely relevant? Also, if Yugoslavia is relevant at all, why not give the examples when goal difference was used there, instead of when it was goal average?

Why not add some examples where the Yugoslavian league was decided on goal DIFFERENCE instead of repeatedly reverting to those decided on goal AVERAGE please? These, and the tedious descriptions of how they developed, are not relevant, because this article is about goal DIFFERENCE? Do you understand the DIFFERENCE????

Gusssss (talk) 16:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any particular reason you removed the Lithuania goalscorers for 2012-2013? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mill2093 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting sources. Dr. Vicodine (talk) 19:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. here, here, and here. Should it default to UEFA? Mill2093 (talk) 23:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea, someone who closely follows Lithuanian league would probably know better. Or you could pick one source and stick to it and we'll see at the end how much it differs from the rest. Dr. Vicodine (talk) 07:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for writing this article 2012–13 NK Slaven Belupo season With my good wishes Tito Dutta ✉ 09:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tito :) Dr. Vicodine (talk) 09:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Goal difference. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Mdann52 (talk) 15:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dr. Vicodine. As you know you've been reported at WP:AN3#User:Dr. Vicodine reported by User:Mdann52 (Result: ). You've been reverting the article since June, and I don't see where you've ever discussed the rationale for your changes. You have never posted at Talk:Goal difference. The admin who closes the AN3 report may decide to sanction you. It would be in your interest to join the discussion and promise to stop reverting until consensus is reached on the talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Goal difference. 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 adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. Bbb23 (talk) 20:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I took note of the above post by Ed and your lack of a response. I also noted that you have made three edits since Ed posted his advice. I was hoping that if I gave you some time, you would demonstrate your willingness to collaborate and discuss, but that didn't happen.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I will give you an opportunity to self-revert your latest reversion at Goal difference, even though I should really block you for resumption of warring after returning from an EW block. If you self-revert before making any other edits on Wikipedia, I will not block you for this incident. I also strongly urge you to discuss the content issues on the article talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm trying to be patient. Your last revert almost blanked the article. I'll assume it was a mistake and you'll fix it.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just made two edits at once. What do you want? He doesn't want to see goal average so I've removed it. Do you want me to bring it all back? Make up your minds. Dr. Vicodine (talk) 21:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I want you to do what I asked you to do, which was to self-revert your last change, not to make further edits under some assumption that this is giving "him" what he wants. I am not taking a position in the content dispute. That's to be worked out on the talk page. Put the article back to the way it was before your 20:43 reversion. And I might add that your cryptic comment on the article talk page was hardly helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do it yourself what you think it's best. I'll stop being a time wasting ignorant troll and won't make any edits there never ever forever. Dr. Vicodine (talk) 22:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a satisfactory solution or a good attitude. I've removed your edits, which were not only a resumption of edit-warring but also disruptive. That said, I'm not going to block you because it strikes me as at least mildly punitive.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chateauneuf du Pape! Dr. Vicodine (talk) 22:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you'll take a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics#"Country" at the Olympics tables, I'm working on standardizing every article about each country's participation at the Olympics. Particularly, I'm converting the medal table to a uniform format, and for countries that participated as previous entities or as parts of other entities, these are being listed as well, in order for the reader to better visualize the given country's continuity of participation. Croatia didn't simply begin in 1992, it officially participated in the Olympics as part of Yugoslavia prior to that, so it should be part of the table. That this is also in the infobox is irrelevant for the reader who will be looking at the table to discern Croatia's Olympic participation history. If Croatian athletes also previously went to the Olympics as part of Austria and/or Hungary, I haven't seen evidence of this at those respective articles, so please add that, if it's missing. Jmj713 (talk) 15:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, have you seen 'See also' section at the page? Dr. Vicodine (talk) 15:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're talking about Milan Neralić? Was he the only Croat to participate at the Olympics as part of Austria-Hungary between 1896 and 1912? If so, we can add a row for the 1900 Paris games stating as part of Austria. There are other such tricky instances in Olympic history, such as with the Russian Empire, for example. At least some of the Baltic nations had athletes at the 1912 Games participate for the Russian Empire, but I haven't gotten there yet. Jmj713 (talk) 15:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, COC alsto lists Đuro Stantić [8]. Dr. Vicodine (talk) 15:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 1906 Intercalated Games are not considered official Olympic Games, though. Jmj713 (talk) 16:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then probably only Neralić. Dr. Vicodine (talk) 16:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have some sympathy with your edit, but think such a map has use and interest. Maybe there's another way that means it's not always going out of date. I'll post at WT:FOOTY and see what others think. Please feel free to join in! --Dweller (talk) 10:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dr. Vicodine, just one thing: I actually think that your revert here is actually wrong. The thing is that SR Serbia does in fact have 32 titles (and not 30), and you can only claim that 2 of them were conquered by a club from SAP Vojvodina, but SAP Vojvodina was in fact part of SR Serbia. Right?

It was a separate football entity. Dr. Vicodine (talk) 19:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are separate units within SR Serbia. SR Serbia without them is not SR Serbia... SR Serbia has 32 titles, that is a fact. FkpCascais (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now better? Dr. Vicodine (talk) 20:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. The SAP´s were subdivisions of SR Serbia and the way you put it is not much explanatory.

I mean, you could have changed and replaced the political units by FA´s (if you claim the SAP´s FA´s were independent) but even so we´ll end up having the same and here is why: I had discussed this issue 3 or 4 years ago on a specific issue related with Kosovo when one Kosovar editor claimed that the FA of SAP Kosovo was independent and in same level as the SR ones, and I found a source back then where the issue was clearly cited that both associations (Kosovo and Vojvodina) were under the SR Serbian FA. It worked a bit as in the political level, they had a seat within the federal association (same as in the federal presidence), but they were in fact under SR Serbia prior and formost. I am trying to find that conversation but it was long time ago... FkpCascais (talk) 20:30, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clubs relegated from the First League were placed in proper division in the second league. For example, from 1970s clubs from SAP Vojvodina were placed in West Division and clubs from SAP Kosovo and SR Serbia in East Division. So if all were SR Serbia it wouldn't have mattered, right? Dr. Vicodine (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Come on Vicodine, that´s really not a good reason in my view... That was basically a random geographical division done so the two second leagues had similar competitivity. Even so, at third level an unified Serbian Republic League existed, and clubs from Vojvodina and Kosovo played in it and had their own league under the unified one, as 4th level. It also depended on the period.

My only point was that when you writte SR Serbia you are refering to the entire SR Serbia (see the article), and you can never writte "SR Serbia" and exclude the provinces for any stats, as that is not "SR Serbia" then, but "SR Serbia without SAP provincies" or something like that... It´´s like writting European Union and then removing the titles won by Spain and having Spain in same level as EU, see my point? :) It´s different levels... and even in football, the FA´s were part of SR Serbian FA, despite having its own organisation. The table should have a subsection under Serbia where the SAP´s stats could possibly be included, something like this:

• SR Serbia 32
  • SAP Kosovo 0
  • SAP Vojvodina 2
• SR Slovenia X
• etc. FkpCascais (talk) 21:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But even so, the point of the table is to have the ranking of the republics, and provincies are not republics... It is not about the 2 titles, beleave me, it´s more about the status. FkpCascais (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then the following sentence should be removed from SR Serbia article: "The republic was controversially internally divided in 1974 to include two autonomous provinces, Vojvodina and Kosovo which had the same rights and privileges as constituent republics of Yugoslavia." Dr. Vicodine (talk) 21:53, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should definitelly, as gives a false impression that they had equal status as the Republics... otherwise, they would have been name Republics and could vote for independence in early 1990s and by the Constitution they couldn´t, while Republics could. See population for exemple, it says 8m, and none of the stats never excludes the SAP´s when giving you nfo about SR Serbia. Remember another thing, Vojvodina (and even Kosovo, on paper of course) still have very similar rights as they had back then, but allways within Serbia, never equal as Serbia. FkpCascais (talk) 22:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for budding in, I accidentally caught this discussion. I too have no problem with listing Vojvodina and Kosovo as part of SR Serbia's historical stats. And adding an explanatory footnote to FK Vojvodina describing the situation should suffice. In any case, you two might be interested in taking this to Talk:Yugoslav First League, so that other editors can see what the consensus is. Best regards to both of you :-) Timbouctou (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all, this discussion should definitelly be placed there, and if Vicodine doesn´t object, anyone can/should move it there. Great to have you here Timbou! FkpCascais (talk) 01:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Vicodine has started the same discussion there, so no problem then. FkpCascais (talk) 02:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Since you have been blocked more than once in the past for edit warring, you knew well enough what you were doing. This edit summary did not exactly help your case, either. 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 adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

Fuck you. Thanks. Dr. Vicodine (talk) 21:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

no reason given to unblock. Talk page accesss may be revoked if next unblock request resembles this one.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Dr. Vicodine, I have disabled your talk page access due to your posting of 1.5 megabytes of Bible text here. See WP:GAB for the other methods of requesting unblock. EdJohnston (talk) 22:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:2012–13 UEFA Champions League group stage". Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 00:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dr. Vicodine. Why did you remove my contribution to 2012–13 Prva HNL?

The club is excluded from participating in the next UEFA club competition for which it would otherwise qualify in the next three seasons (i.e. 2013/14, 2014/15, 2015/16), unless it proves that, by 31 March 2013, it has paid the overdue amounts previously established by the CFCB investigatory chamber; that it has paid any amounts deferred in writing that fall due before 31 March 2013; and that it has settled any payables as of 31 December 2012 which will become due before 31 March 2013, in line with Articles 49 and 50 of the Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations. Dr. Vicodine (talk) 21:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to create an articles of Hajduk Split seasons?

Suggestions:

1992 HNK Hajduk Split season
1992–93 HNK Hajduk Split season
1993–94 HNK Hajduk Split season
1996–97 HNK Hajduk Split season
1997–98 HNK Hajduk Split season
1998–99 HNK Hajduk Split season
1999–2000 HNK Hajduk Split season
2000–01 HNK Hajduk Split season
2001–02 HNK Hajduk Split season
2002–03 HNK Hajduk Split season
2003–04 HNK Hajduk Split season
2004–05 HNK Hajduk Split season
2005–06 HNK Hajduk Split season
2006–07 HNK Hajduk Split season
2007–08 HNK Hajduk Split season

Jolicnikola (talk) 21:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don 't have time at the moment. You can go ahead and maybe start working on some of them. Dr. Vicodine (talk) 17:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed 1.5Mb of Bible text posted to your user page. Maybe you should read "What may I not have in my user pages?". Please understand that Wikipedia is not a webhost. Thanks for your attention. -- Alexf^(talk) 18:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2014 FIFA World Cup qualification – UEFA Group C. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ) 89.144.192.46 (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting vandalism by sockpuppets and something that differs from WP policy is not edit war. Dr. Vicodine (talk) 23:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This edits do not look like vandalism - AND ! # Do not edit war even if you believe you are right. 89.144.192.70 (talk) 01:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Vicodine, may I now ask you in a more civilized manner to PLEASE to changing and protect 2014 FIFA World Cup Qualification (UEFA)? I and many other people are certain that this is not against any rules and is perfectly fine. thanks. (84.187.179.32 (talk) 17:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Also you DEFINETLY can put on calculations due to this rule. on the page WP:NOR of which you state to be your source for your actions it specifically says the following :

"Routine calculations: Routine calculations do not count as original research. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, is allowed provided there is consensus among editors that the calculation is an obvious, correct, and meaningful reflection of the sources." this dr. is proof that you are wrong in your opinions. (84.187.179.32 (talk) 18:08, 30 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

if you ignore these remarks it would prove that you are wrong. 100%!!

Why do you use the numbers from the UEFA and Sportnet webpages instead of the ones from the official Prva HNL site?

After looking back at your talk page, I don't really expect to accomplish much, but I'm going to make an attempt at discussion here. I'll try responding to the 3 policies on original research, crystal ball, and synthesis that you continue to cite in your edits.

• Original research. See the same policy you're using as your position, specifically the section at WP:CALC. It doesn't take any original research to get the scenarios, just simple addition and subtraction. Do you believe the resulting statements are in any way inaccurate? If so, feel free to make corrections.
• Crystal ball. This simply does not apply, as no predictions are being made.
• Synthesis. Again, does not fit in this case; this policy specifically addresses the case of combining sources to advance the opinion of the WP editor. In this case no opinions are either stated directly, nor are they implied.

I look forward to your response.LarryJeff (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_54#Talk:2012.E2.80.9313_UEFA_Champions_League_group_stage Dr. Vicodine (talk) 06:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out to me. LarryJeff (talk) 13:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of the key arguments in that discussion is that the data is very transitionary and only useful for limited time (eg a few weeks at best in Champions League). World Cup qualifications are much slower than that and will frequently last 3-4 months, sometimes more. -- Lejman (talk) 18:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Croatia Squad 1999 FIFA World Youth Championship has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. C679 06:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at 2014 FIFA World Cup qualification – CAF Second Round shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Stigni (talk) 15:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Removed Content

The article Tedi Surać has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I invite you to a new discussion on the matter: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Next matchday scenarios. Ivan Volodin (talk) 17:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sorry for disturbing you again. Thank you for participating in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Next matchday scenarios. I have proposed a conclusion that addresses the concerns of many participants regarding reliable sources. I kind of know your position, but still would appreciate a comment. Ivan Volodin (talk) 10:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, match Estonia - Russia end. Russia won 2-1.

NO LIVE SCORES.Dr. Vicodine (talk) 16:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but match ends. why there is an article about qualifing round? It was end?DmitryGrigorev (talk) 16:57, 31 May 2014 (UTC) In my countrys wiki I can LIVE SCORES, especially if playing country team DmitryGrigorev (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2014 (UTC) Why I cannot Live Scores?DmitryGrigorev (talk) 17:36, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dr. Vicodine. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Sanja Popović, for deletion because it's a biography of a living person that lacks references. If you don't want Sanja Popović to be deleted, please add a reference to the article.

If you don't understand this message, you can leave a note on my talk page.

Thanks, Wgolf (talk) 18:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of 2016 UEFA European Under-19 Championship qualifying round, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://9schedule.com/tag/euro-under-19-qualification-fixtures.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 17:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Silente LovacNaCudesa cover.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 16:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, in this edit you appear to have missed an obvious embedded note. As noted, birthdates of living people must be attributed to a reliable published source with an established reputation for fact-checking, (no blogs, no sites that employ user-generated content like IMDb and Wikia, no public records sites, etc) and widely published. Please see WP:BLPPRIVACY. The information you have submitted has been removed. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at List of awards and nominations received by Brie Larson. 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. Musdan77 (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been or will be reverted or removed.

• 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. 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.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. And it's not constructive to just repeat what I wrote -- in fact that's childish behavior. You should know better than that. And I see that you have been blocked before, so I don't think you want to go down that road again. To follow the rules of WP:BRD, you made a bold edit that was reverted (partially), so your next move was to discuss why you think your edit should be reinstated. To just revert back is a violation. There have been times when I've made edits that have been reverted, so I made my position as to why the change should be made. That's just how it's done. I currently can't revert it again without violating the WP:3RR, so I hope you will do the right thing and undo your last edit and then start a discussion if you want. Thanks. Musdan77 (talk) 04:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. Musdan77 (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have been very patient with you. I've given you plenty of opportunity to explain yourself, either here or on the article talk page. And instead of just reverting your edits, I have painstakingly worked to keep what was acceptable - to try and work with you. WP editors are supposed to try and work with each other, not make disruptive edit wars. Please don't let this get any worse. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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:Dr._Vicodine reported by User:Musdan77 (Result: ). Thank you. Musdan77 (talk) 23:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Little Sister (2016 film), Dr. Vicodine!

Wikipedia editor Fitindia just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

please add more links and citations

To reply, leave a comment on Fitindia's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Hello, Dr. Vicodine. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dr. Vicodine. 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)[reply]

Hello, Dr. Vicodine. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dr. Vicodine. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, 2018–19 Croatian Women's Football Cup, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! My name is Beroe2019 and I want to participate in the Wikipedia. I want to edit and write in peace. What requirements should I cover? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beroe 2019 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You only write about Croatian football? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beroe 2019 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2018–19 Croatian Women's Football Cup, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

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

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

SportingFlyer T·C 07:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Ivan Ibriks, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. QueerEcofeminist ^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 21:12, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2017–18 Croatian Second Football League table has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 13:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dr. Vicodine,

Thanks for creating Vedrana Jakšetić! I edit here too, under the username Domdeparis and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

The sources are all interviews and as such are primary sources

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Domdeparis}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Dom from Paris (talk) 22:34, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Iva Primorac 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/Iva Primorac 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.

Note: I have also nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oleksandra Oliynykova and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mariana Dražić, but I'm only pinging you once.

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. Iffy★Chat -- 09:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed a bunch of recent tennis articles you created do not meet any type of notability requirements and will soon be deleted. You might want to read up on those requirements at the Tennis Project Guideline page. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 11:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pozdrav. Vi ste stavili na tabeli 1957–58 Yugoslav First League, da je odlučivao gol-količnik. Za sledeču sezonu, dakle 1958-59, stoji, da je odličivala gol-razlika? Da li je to sigurno tačno? Dakle do 1958 koristio se količnik, a nakon toga razlika? 212.85.174.201 (talk) 09:15, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi dude I hope you're good I wanna know what your problem with the photo of megan montaner is l,everyone in wikipedia has a photo for showing them and as far as i know she is very famous and had a lot of fans thus either tell me what your problem is or never ever omit it from wikepedia The rateable (talk) 07:10, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove my change??? It's fucking rude not to give explanation in the summary. Setenzatsu.2 (talk) 19:26, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see you changed the number of 2023 participants from 20 to 24, but the 2023 FIVB Volleyball Girls' U19 World Championship talks about 20. Which is it? Pelmeen10 (talk) 06:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Teamwork (House) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not appear to be notable. Nothing found in a BEFORE.

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. DonaldD23 talk to me 20:54, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Lucija Ćirić Bagarić, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from reliable, independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. It should have at least three, to be safe. And please remember that interviews, as primary sources, do not count towards GNG.(?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lucija Ćirić Bagarić, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

SportingFlyer T·C 20:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]