User talk:Nbanic

Unspecified source/license for File:Stanko Nick (1935-2010).png
Thanks for uploading File:Stanko Nick (1935-2010).png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like PD-self (to release all rights), (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 14:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Minor edits
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Stanko Nick, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Gab4gab (talk) 18:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Miroslav Juhn
Hello, Nbanic. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Miroslav Juhn, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:


 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&action=edit edit the page]
 * 2) remove the text that looks like this:
 * 3) save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Winged Blades Godric 10:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited March 24, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Reichstag and Reichsrat ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/March_24 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/March_24?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert
Your behaviour in recent weeks – including sockpuppetry – has been highly disruptive. Please consider this a warning that if you continue to revert material back into articles without gaining consensus for it (per WP:BRD the onus is on you to achieve consensus if your edits are reverted), you will either be blocked or topic banned from Yugoslavia-related articles. Number  5  7  12:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * As you've just reverted material back into an article without gaining consensus for it (despite the warning above), you are now topic banned from all Yugoslavia-related articles for a period of six months. This includes editing articles or their talk pages. If you violate this topic ban, you will be blocked from editing. Number   5  7  20:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not aware of any other restrictions on you specifically. This topic area is a magnet for problematic editors, hence why administrators are allowed to hand out topic bans like the one you were given. If you restart the same behaviour as last time, it is likely that another ban will be imposed.
 * To give you a heads up, editors who effectively stop editing after a topic ban is imposed often come back and restart the same behaviour, as they are only interested in the disputed area they have caused problems in. The fact that you have barely edited since your topic ban was imposed is a little worrying, and will likely be taken into consideration if there are any issues with your editing in future. Number   5  7  09:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Number 57 I would say that my editing pace was as earlier, and as for the disputed topics, I edited more because the content I was putting there was repeatedly removed or changed. Since I edited stuff here a long time ago and only got into trouble because of not knowing all the rules, I was interested to see whether there are some ongoing restrictions. So basically is there anything that I should be additionally aware of? For example, if I want to put new sourced content on a potentially problematic page, can I put it immediately in the page or do I have to go through the Talk page first? Nbanic (talk) 09:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You are free to add stuff to articles, as long as it is in line with WP:NPOV. Consistent addition of information from one side of an argument will be viewed as problematic though. Number   5  7  11:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Number 57 OK, thanks for the info! The whole problem that led to the ban started when I added a known information (about a Croatian cardinal) and when it got repeatedly removed by a user despite sourcing. Later, I did not know of the existence of certain rules, which I am now aware of. In these days I will probably be adding the results of a new research paper to one of the potentially problematic articles here. I guess that by sourcing it and objectively reporting on it there should be no problems when adding the material to the desired article. Can I tag you when I do that? Nbanic (talk) 12:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I would rather not be involved if that's ok. Number   5  7  12:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Number 57 OK, I will not tag you then. I learned more stuff about some rules now and I hope that there will be no further problems. Nbanic (talk) 12:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Re: Socialist Republic of Croatia
I'll assume then that you agree with me. :) Tzowu (talk) 21:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * To some degree I agree meaning that there were no references given, but the term socialist Croatia really is used, although not necessarily commonly. It doesn't matter anyhow. The page is a mess. Man, even the part on the flag is wrong. Not biased, but wrong. Not to mention the part on Stepinac that used to be totally biased earlier. At least that is now more neutral than it used to be. Nbanic (talk) 21:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not perfect, but currently, there are articles that need much more attention than that one. Tzowu (talk) 16:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I can believe that. Nbanic (talk) 17:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tutzing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eugen Ott. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Copying licensed material requires attribution
Hi. I see in a recent addition to Total variation you included material from a webpage that is available under a compatible Creative Commons Licence. That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. It's also required under the terms of the license. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying from compatibly-licensed material in the future. — Diannaa (talk) 13:36, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Diannaa, thank you for the remark and for adding the required stuff there. Nbanic (talk) 13:43, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Self-citation spam
Hello, Nbanic. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the request edit template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Conflict of interest);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.

Citing your own just published work IS a conflict of interests. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 21:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi HelpUsStopSpam, what if I am not paid and/or have no external relationship with the people, places or things I have written about? Do I have to try to prove/disprove it or is the revert already a message that there is no point? I am asking because I would like to edit and contribute, but not without understanding whether there is any point in it. Nbanic (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2021 (UTC)


 * You are of course welcome to contribute your knowledge. However, it should not be about adding your research. I am certainly there are plenty of topics where you can contribute without that being related to your research. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 08:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Neutral version
You can edit in Talk:Josip Broz Tito for a neutral version: I did it. Ciao--Passando (talk) 19:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)