Zemertrimi

July 2021

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Khirurg (talk) 00:13, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

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

• 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 noticeboards.
• 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. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Demetrios1993 (talk) 16:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

August 2021

Hello. Your recent edit to List of people from Shkodër appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person, organization or product added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you. POLITANVM ^talk 20:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Goranxi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Orthodox. 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) 06:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hi Zemertrimi! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! --Maleschreiber (talk) 05:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Maleschreiber. Zemertrimi (talk) 11:10, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GJOLEKA, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 03:04, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Gjoleka was indeed my old account , but I lost access to it so I decided to create this new account. As previously stated I'm unable to log into Gjoleka any more so there is nothing to worry about that account from me atleast. Zemertrimi (talk) 08:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with using a new account since you're not using both simultaneously and you're not avoiding sanctions, but you should explain the situation in the investigation page here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GJOLEKA. Ahmet Q. (talk) 23:51, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I have tho done already an explanation in Wikipedia Talk:Sockpuppet investigations/GJOLEKA Zemertrimi (talk) 06:47, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

You have written it on the talk page, but you have to actually write it on the project page itself under the "Comments by other users" section. Ahmet Q. (talk) 11:09, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

August 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  GeneralNotability (talk) 23:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Can I though know which edits I made had other editors feel personally attacked ? Zemertrimi (talk) 07:17, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I did see if was the cause for one of my edits of Onufri , the reason tho was as you can see in my edit history I had already explained the reasons for my edits but Alexikoua kept on reverting Zemertrimi (talk) 07:43, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

August 2021

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Balkans or Eastern Europe. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Your selective removals of things you seem not to like, and alteration of sourced information, are becoming tiresome. Users with similar behavior have been banned in the past. I suggest you modify your approach or we will have big problems soon. Khirurg (talk) 13:14, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

"Big problems soon" lol , Ok though I understand I will try to make my behaviour better. Zemertrimi (talk) 13:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

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

• 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 noticeboards.
• 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 stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use inappropriate or abusive edit summaries, as you did at Onufri, you may be blocked from editing. Alexikoua (talk) 10:30, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I am already blocked for a while chill Zemertrimi (talk) 12:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Uprising in Montenegro (1941). This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

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.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:46, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

The names are not even close to modern Zemertrimi (talk) 11:48, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

You obviously didn't read the guidance I suggested (WP:MPN). It specifically says "Older names should be used in appropriate historical contexts when a substantial majority of reliable modern sources do the same; this includes the names of articles relating to particular historical periods.". The majority of reliable sources on this period use the names that were being used THEN, not now. I am not disputing that they are different now, but we don't refer to the "Fall of Istanbul" in 1453, we refer to the "Fall of Constantinople" because that is what the majority of sources call it (because that was what it was called then). Feel free to revert yourself. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:52, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Ali Dino, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Demetrios1993 (talk) 15:33, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I was really confused at first on why a Albanian should have a Greek name version on their Wiki page Either way Thank You for leaving a message! Zemertrimi (talk) 09:02, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Hey

Hey, here on Wikipedia it is important to read the wiki policies and have sources about the subjects which interest you. Many of the disputes you are getting into are unnecessary. In most of them you would not get into a dispute if you used sources for your edits of phrased them differently. If you enable your email, I could send you some of the sources I have gathered. They cover most topics about Albanian history and will come in handy when bettering Alb topics with WP:RS. Durraz0 (talk) 16:14, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I'll take it in consideration , Thank You DurrazO! Zemertrimi (talk) 09:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Since nobody cared enough is not a good argument in any situation @Zemertrimi:. You will most likely get into other disputes and you will get a longer block or even a topic ban, if you follow the same course. @Durraz0: gave you some excellent pieces of advice. PS You can also ask me for my bibliography list. I think that it's better to do some reading before editing.--Maleschreiber (talk) 13:31, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Shkreli (tribe), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mitrovica.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Do not forget to make an edit summary for every edit you make

Read WP:Edit summary. That helps other editors better understand the reasons for your changes, especially when you revert someone else. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

September 2021

Despite repeated warnings throughout the month of August and offers of guidance from user Durraz0, you continue to engage in unproductive behavior. In your most recent edit on the Isa Boletini article, you continue to violate WP:MPN. In a recent edit on the Božidar Janković article, you made reference to dead webpage links. In a recent edit on the Velika Hoča article, your contribution did not meek Wikipedia writing guidelines. If fellow Wikipedia editors have to continue chasing up your edits, this will create further conflict. I am glad we came to an agreement on some edits, however in order to avoid conflict with future edits, please familiarize yourself with the guidelines that have already been provided to you in previous notifications. ElderZamzam (talk) 23:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

September 2021

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Khirurg (talk) 16:58, 10 September 2021 (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 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:Zemertrimi reported by User:Khirurg (Result: ). Thank you. Khirurg (talk) 21:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

September 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Hormovë. 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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 22:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)