User talk:Sheldonium

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Please read Red link about your recent removal of redlinks. Thanks. If there is anything you ever need or have any questions, please ask. Thank you, and happy editing. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Articles
Hello, thanks for these articles! I’ve just read them and I’m a bit concerned that they don't have any citations. That worries me since without proof that a topic is notable, meaning covered enough in media for it to be possible to write a fair article on the topic, the articles may get deleted.

Are there any reliable sources that you can add? If so just edit the article and add citations using the cite tool, or if you have any thoughts or questions just let me know. Blythwood (talk) 20:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


 * See also WP: My first article --220  of  Borg 20:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Tesla
Your posting on talk:Nikola Tesla was moved to Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity, per the instructions at the top of the talk page ("This is the talk page for discussing changes to the Nikola Tesla article itself. Please place requests for comment or debates about Tesla's ethnicity on Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity. Questions concerning his nationality, ethnicity, and/or birthplace should also be asked on the sub-talkpage").- MrX 22:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

April 2017
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at English language. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. BilCat (talk) 23:22, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please 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, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Edit warring at Croatian language
You have reverted four times on this article since June 10. Please be aware that this article is under a WP:1RR restriction, which means you could already be blocked for making two reverts on June 14. This may be your only warning. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:48, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

July 2017
You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Sockpuppet investigations/Filipz123. Thank you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Famousbirthdays.com as a source
Hi Sheldonium. I'm in the process of removing famousbirthdays.com as a source from Wikipedia, because it's not reliable (See Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_153). I noticed that you've added it, and wanted to make sure you understood why it's being removed. If you disagree, let's discuss it. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 20:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Vjekoslav Luigi Meichsner moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Vjekoslav Luigi Meichsner, 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 " " 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 follow the prompts on the Articles for Creation template atop the page. —  InsertCleverPhraseHere  19:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Vjekoslav Meichsner moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Vjekoslav Meichsner, 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 " " 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 follow the prompts on the Articles for Creation template atop the page. —  InsertCleverPhraseHere  19:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Tomislav Domazet-Lošo


The article Tomislav Domazet-Lošo has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "The criteria for notability of academics are not met. (WP:ACADEMIC)"

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 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 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. MichaK (talk) 15:02, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

July 2017
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at List_of_Croatian_inventions_and_discoveries. 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 be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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 block.

''Clearly your additions here have been opposed and the best response is to try and discuss them, using the article talk: page. There is also a discussion about these edits at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Technology and you are invited to contribute there.'' Andy Dingley (talk) 10:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:17, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello Sheldonium. You should consider promising to stop the edit war reported at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Otherwise you are risking a block for long term edit warring on this article (from July 16 to the present). You have never used the talk page at List of Croatian inventions and discoveries. You have indeed participated in the thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Technology but nobody there supports your position. If it appears you are editing promotionally for the Croatian side of every dispute, you are risking a sanction under WP:ARBMAC. EdJohnston (talk) 19:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

July 2017
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Technology, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.  Andy Dingley (talk) 18:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

List of Croatian inventions and discoveries is covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBMAC
EdJohnston (talk) 19:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring at List of Croatian inventions and discoveries
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 request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. 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. The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Block expired, first edits are to restore the challenged content. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Vjekoslav Luigi Meichsner has been accepted
 Vjekoslav Luigi Meichsner, 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. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! SwisterTwister  talk  06:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

July 2017
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on List_of_Croatian_inventions_and_discoveries. 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 that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: 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.''https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Croatian_inventions_and_discoveries&type=revision&diff=792604274&oldid=792301195
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

You've just served out a block for adding this same contested content, and your first edit is to restore it? Please discuss this, in the long thread on these topics. '' Andy Dingley (talk) 14:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Nikola Tesla. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 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.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for edit warring, as you did at List of Croatian inventions and discoveries. 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 request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. 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.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  14:20, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * As soon as the block expired, you continued the same edit-war the led to the block. You left me no option but to extend your block.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  14:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Vjekoslav Luigi Meichsner


A tag has been placed on Vjekoslav Luigi Meichsner requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from This is a paste-in from the first reference "On 29 April 1916, Vjekoslav Luigi Meichsner, a civil engineer and entrepreneur, died in Zadar. Born in 1847 in Monza. Education data are not known to us. He spent most of his life in Sibenik where he realized his most significant projects such as the City Plumbing, the Provincial Hospital, the District Court building, etc. He was the first Croatian builder of a modern power system in Croatia when he built a hydroelectric power plant on the Krka River. The second major project to build the first regional electricity network with consumers in Zadar, Šibenik and Split did not come to life because of the opposition in Zadar, but this system worked half a century after his death. A number of construction works have been done in Zadar and Rijeka, Zagreb and Sarajevo." --Google Translate]. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. 196.52.16.227 (talk) 16:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Vjekoslav Meichsner


A tag has been placed on Draft:Vjekoslav Meichsner requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://www.enciklopedija.hr/natuknica.aspx?id=39917. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:53, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * See the other CSD on Vjekoslav Luigi Meichsner above. Seems you've been writing these by taking the first ref, translating it (auto-translating it?) and adding it as a "new" article. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:55, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

An apology is required
I do not dislike Croats and am not an anti-Semite. Please apologise for these defamatory remarks. I loathe notionalists of any stripe. And I would recommend that you read a reliable history of LTA aviation.TheLongTone (talk) 16:33, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

July 2018
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but your recent edits appear to be intentional disruptions designed to illustrate a point. Edits designed for the deliberate purpose of drawing opposition, including making edits you do not agree with or enforcing a rule in a generally unpopular way, are highly disruptive and can lead to a block or ban. If you feel that a policy is problematic, the policy's talk page is the proper place to raise your concerns. If you simply disagree with someone's actions in an article, discuss it on the article talk page or, if direct discussion fails, through dispute resolution. If consensus strongly disagrees with you even after you have made proper efforts, then respect the consensus, rather than trying to sway it with disruptive tactics. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 14:58, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Your recent editing history 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 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jingiby (talk) 18:27, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. Jingiby (talk) 20:13, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Serb-Catholic movement in Dubrovnik
Please familiarize you with this article Serb-Catholic movement in Dubrovnik. The group of local Catholic intellectuals, known as Catholic Serbs, espoused a pro-Serbian sentiment. The most prominent incarnations of the movement were the early South pan-Slavic activists as Matija Ban and Medo Pucić, and a more Serbian nationalist, led by a large number of Dubrovnik intellectuals at the time. It is important to respect their self-identification. Please, do not change their identity post-mortal. This is pseudoscience and is ahistorical, as it projects modern national sentiments into the past. The fact you dislike it can not change the history. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 16:57, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Do not mark major edits as minor
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits 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. &mdash;J. M. (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page List of Croatian inventions and discoveries has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 11:20, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Your edits at List of Croatian inventions and discoveries reinstated material not backed by the sources
Your first edit had a link to a draft page (which we never use as a link) which was deleted as was the article that you wrote on the inventor. And that article did not make the claim the restored text made, "First European hydropower", it said first Croatian hydropower. So you used a draft link which involved a deleted article to make a claim that was clearly false. To make matters worse, your edit summary was misleading as it said "reverting unsourced undo". What in the world does that mean? The editor removing it correctly wrote in their edit summary was the first European hydropower station was built.

Then you restored this text claiming Croatian invention of the Dirigible by David Schwarz (aviation inventor) and Vegeta> The editor reverting dirigible pointed out that " "dirigible" is the name of an airship flown by French inventor Henri Giffard roughly 30 years before Schwarz even reportedly became interested in the topic, and numerous others predate Schwarz's design" which is correct and there is no claim in Schwarz's article that he invented the dirigible. As for Vegeta, the reason was "Vegeta is a branded food additive, not an invention (as discussed at length at Talk:Vegeta (condiment)" - as you don't seem to even know that article exists, I assume you didn't read the talk page. But you did see the edit summary so have no excuse for reinstating it. Your rationale "reverting undos which are established on personal beliefs and not reliable sources" has no basis in reality, given the talk page discussion for Vegeta and the fact that both the article on Dirigiles and Schwartz's article make it clear he didn't invent it. This of course isn't the first time you've added this material.  Doug Weller  talk 11:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert for articles and content relating to the Balkans
Doug Weller talk 12:08, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Note that it is only because the alert given you by User:EdJohnston has expired as it was given to you more than a year ago that I have not topic banned you from the area. Doug Weller  talk 12:10, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sheldonium, your edits don't appear to be neutral. You seem to be taking the Croatian side of every difference of opinion. If this continues, it is likely that an admin will topic ban you from all Balkan editing under WP:ARBMAC. EdJohnston (talk) 15:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

November 2019
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at List of Croatian inventions and discoveries, you may be blocked from editing. —J. M. (talk) 20:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 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.

My personal note: You have been repeatedly blocked for your disruptive editing in List of Croatian inventions and discoveries. You know why and yet you still knowingly keep adding gigantic nonsense like this, something that has been explained many times before. You know it, and you keep doing it. So, just stop. If you you keep doing it, I will report you and ask the admin to block you indefinitely this time.—J. M. (talk) 20:51, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Thi is your last warning
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at List of Croatian inventions and discoveries. —J. M. (talk) 20:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Thin ice
Sheldonium, you've been here almost four years. You know how this all works. You've been advised of Discretionary Sanctions regarding the Balkans. You just reverted me without reason, and you've got myriad final warnings on your user talk page. So you should ask yourself if you are here to build an encyclopedia or if you're just going to be another roadkill on the highway of ultranationalist zealots? The choice is yours, friend. I hope you choose to stay. Elizium23 (talk) 03:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC)


 * It all began with respected user who started insisting that Ivan Gundulić is actually Serbian, or at least Ragusan, but provided no independent, reliable sources in any of his claims, the whole time victimizing himself and accusing other Wikipedians that are uncivil. The complete discussion can be seen here. I tried to bypass the futile discussion and provided nine independent, reliable sources, after which user Sadko reverted it reffering to MOS:Lead. That was clear vandalism and I reverted his edit, once again Sadko reverted my undo claiming that "The man was Ragusan and should be described as such", contrary to the sources provided. After another undo, he gave up, but later sneakingly deleted that Gundulić was Croat and Brittanica source proving that, while adding unreferenced claim that "in Serbia he is seen as an integral part of Serbian literature.", which is most likey true (but for that are needed sources too), but only written to put Serbs in the story, to mention the possibility that he is Serbian. After that, there was another edit war, after which Sadko reverted it all to "basic stable version", once again reffering to MOS:Lead. After that the article is protected. After another restoration to sourced content, Sadko deleted sourced content saying "POV pushing by all means (while there was no conclusion in TP discussion, as usual) is a serious breaking of Wiki guidelines.", although the source was third-party (Britannica) and he continued to prolong discussion on talk page, saying there is no consensus, while only he out of ten other users wont make it, providing no arguments nor sources.


 * After all this I agreed that no ethnicity will be in lead, according to WP:Ethnicity, but came to article about Nikola Tesla, so no double standards would be. First, I provided a link that the word tesla is not just Serbian, but also Croatian, here, then I deleted the mention of ethnicity in lead, here, referring to WP:ETHNICITY, and MOS:Lead, two Wikipedia rules which user Sadko was constantly reffering to, after he failed to provied reliable, intependent sources for Gundulić ethnicity, only to remove all mentioning of Gundulić's actual and sourced Croatian ethnicity. And who first came to revert my edit? User Sadko, here. I then again deleted ethnicity in lead per WP:ETHNICITY, here, copy-pasting the exact arguments that user Sadko used whily deleting ethnicity in Gundulić's article (Not per MOS:Lead - no ethnicity allowed in the lead, also double standards). Then user came, reverting my edit here, saying that there was a consensus on talk page, althoug I stated here, that it is not the issue, the issue is ethnicity in lead. Interesting enough, consensus that Nikola Tesla was Serbian-American was locked by Serbian administrator, who blocked me because I was reffering to Wikipedia rules. User, Vanjagenije reffered to concensus to restore ethnicity in lead, here, and of course, deleting the sourced fact that word tesla is not just Serbian, but also Croatian. That are clear double standards, how can this be allowed? First unsourced claims for Gundulić, for which users ,  and I, provided more than enough independent, reliable, third-party sources clearly stating his Croatian ethnicity, then user Sadko continued to delete his ethnicity in lead and on other Croatia-related biographies too, like here and here,  and after I agreed, and respected Wikipedia rule WP:ETHNICITY and purpusefully deleted mentioning of Serbian-American ethnicity on Nikola Tesla article, just in lead (!), I got banned. Please, stop corruption of Wikipedia, double standards and hypocrisy. Users such as Vanjagenije shoud not participate in this, because of obvious bias, he/she has all the power to benefit Serbian POV. But there is something else, Vanjagenije, you are sockpuppet investigator, check this, is seems like user Sadko himself, creating new account only to more easily delete mentioning of Croatia and Croats in Croatia-related biographies. And no ultranationalism is needed, only justice, equality, and sourced content, that is all I promoted. Thank you.--Sheldonium (talk) 14:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * EDIT: No consensus about deleting ethnicity in lead of Nikola Tesla article is needed, rules are here for a reason .--Sheldonium (talk) 14:06, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Concesus is needed. Stop shifting the blame, it is not helping your case. Serbian-American is not only ethnicity, but nationality/citizenship as well - basically his identity. Other editors have pointed out which road you should take if you want to make any changes.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  14:46, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * (a) First of all, you were not blocked for reffering to Wikipedia rules, you were blocked for WP:edit warring. This is not the first time you were edit warring. Actually, you have been previously blocked for a month, so you are expected to know what edit warring is. There are no double standards: no one is allowed to edit-war. If another user was edit warring, I am going to deal with them too. (b) I am not a Serbian administrator, I am an English Wikipedia administrator. Accusing other editors of ethnic bias without any argument is considered a WP:PA and is itself a blockable offense. (c) Accusing others of WP:Socking without providing any evidence is also a WP:PA. Please, stop righting great wrongs and try to reach consensus with users of different opinions.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  15:22, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Serbian in Serbian-American is not, and could not be nationality nor citizenship, only ethnicity and that is still dubious, so exactly that part should be deleted per WP:ETHNICITY. And again, can you please answer me, Sadko, why do you use Wikipedia rules to benefit your POV? You are not here to decide whether consensuses are needed or not, rules are rules. You use consensuses only to delete every mentioning of Croatian in Croatia-related biographies. If you so much insist on WP:ethnicity why did you revert mine, because you do not like the idea thatnoone can see that Tesla is Serb, but it is unacceptable to you that Gundulić is Croat and mentioning that in the lead? Vanjagenije, I was blocked before for the similar reasons, beacuse I was providing independent, reliable sources for facts that some people did not like, and it insults me that you have bias towards anything related to Croatia or Serbia, you as an administrator should stay out of this, because there has been no Serb that would do something aginst their countrymen, even though they are supporting lies. I am sorry if that insults you, but you are currently supporting double standards and Serbian POV, I provided sources, and referred to Wikipedia rules. I cannot write more nor provide more proofs for that claim than I did in my response to user Elizium23. You either did not open a single link, or are completely biased if you are supporting this. And block me if you wish, that would be final proof. Will we finally reach consensus then, and start to delete every mentioning of ethnicity in every biography per WP:ETHNICITY, but leave it as a fact somewhere else in the article, and exact ethnicity would be the one for which predominate independent, reliable, sources?--Sheldonium (talk) 16:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

March 2020
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for edit warring, as you did at Nikola Tesla. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  09:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 11:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

March 2020
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making personal attacks towards other editors. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  16:16, 29 March 2020 (UTC)


 * According to this, you are obviously not able, nor willing to cooperate with other editors. Less than an hour ago, I warned you that accusing others of ethnic bias without providing any evidence is considered a WP:PA, yet you immediately continued exactly the same behavior.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  16:18, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * "I cannot write more nor provide more proofs for that claim than I did in my response to user Elizium23. You either did not open a single link, or are completely biased if you are supporting this." This proves that you did not read my whole response, full of evidence of ethnic bias on your and Sadko's side, but speedily blocked me because you simply cannot handle the truth. And it seems that I was right about this: "And block me if you wish, that would be final proof.". Enjoy corrupting Wikipedia. --Sheldonium — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.168.116.10 (talk) 20:34, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

 Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive. ([ block log] • [ active blocks] • [ global blocks] • [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/autoblock/?user=&project=en.wikipedia.org autoblocks] • contribs • deleted contribs • [ abuse filter log] • [ creation log] • change block settings • [ unblock] • [ checkuser] ([ log]) )

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  23:47, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Ways to improve Glossary of nanotechnology
Hello, Sheldonium,

Thank you for creating Glossary of nanotechnology.

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

"This has been tagged for a lack of references."

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. 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.

Boleyn (talk) 15:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation
Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation
Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 00:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Venetian lexicographers


A tag has been placed on Category:Venetian lexicographers requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 15:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Venetian inventors


A tag has been placed on Category:Venetian inventors requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Venetian travel writers


A tag has been placed on Category:Venetian travel writers indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 04:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Category:Venetian male writers has been nominated for splitting
Category:Venetian male writers has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2023 (UTC)