Sorry for the belated welcome, but the cookies are still warm!
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, HankMoodyTZ. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.
Hi HankMoodyTZ! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! AmaryllisGardener (I'm a Teahouse host)
Hello, I'm Jaellee. Your recent edit to the page Sejad Salihović appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Jaellee (talk) 21:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Jaellee.
I'm actually Bosnian and follow all my national side members' games. I've actually watched the game where he scored his second goal, against Hianye. If you look up on Transfermarkt, it says he has 2 goals on his account.
In general, such videos are primary sources and may be used, but only with care (see WP:PRIMARY). Reliable secondary sources (such as websites with statistics) are preferred. The problem with videos is for example that there has been at least one case where a player seems to have scored a goal but later the goal was awarded (by the UEFA) to someone else who is now the official goalscorer. But I think that for Salihović this will do now. --Jaellee (talk) 16:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Hello, I'm Mattythewhite. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Asmir Begović without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't think there's place for references in the tables, but if you think they should be there, I'm sorry.[reply]
Please be more careful with your edits. You got a message from the ReferenceBot about an error on the Edin Džeko article and yet you've made more than 30 edits to this article without fixing this error which is shown on the article in a big red-colored message. You may also start to use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. --Jaellee (talk) 13:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I am making his international goals table, I haven't even seen the message, sorry.[reply]
Timestamp
Hi.
When you update statistics please remember that you should also update the timestamps as of when the stats are correct. This is done by manually updating the date above or below the statistics table. By doing this we show when the stats were last updated and it prevents other editors from accidentally updating the stats again.
I was only trying to compress the chart of international goals because it's obvious that the Euro qualifiers are organized by UEFA and the World Cup qualifiers by FIFA. But no worries, it stays your way.
Thanks mate, it says so at every other players' page, so I think it should be on his too.
Cheers.
Hi again. My main "concerns" (for lack of a better word, people reverting each other at WP is not the end of the world) now are: 1 - intro, why did you remove the "central" part from his position when it is 100% true? Also there, it's irrelevant to say "...is a Bosnian footballer who plays as a (position) for (club)" or "...is a Bosnian footballer who plays for (club) as a (position)", so if you revert me again in this last part i'll leave it be, out of respect for your work. But please keep in mind, the "de" in his current club is to be left in display, compression is for box.
Not a "concern" now, mainly an improvement I think I did: I replaced the article's reference #20 because his NFT.com profile already appears as an external link, and EU-FOOTBALL.info is also reliable per WP standards. Regards. --84.90.219.128 (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I used the Lionel Messi template for introduction. At his page it says "Argentine professional footballer whos plays as forwars for Spanish club Barcelona and Argentina national team". So I have just copied that and used it for every Bosnian player. Also, I removed the central part, because he can be deployed as defensive midfielder or attacking one as well as central, so I think it shoud stay so.
Okay, we'll leave "midfielder" only. But PLEASE, leave the "de" in the club's name. He's the only Bosnian player I edit, so I won't be giving you any problems anywhere else. --84.90.219.128 (talk) 00:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, no prob, leave de in introduction.
More situations: please, the title of the ref you added in the infobox is not "Haris Medunjanin Deportivo profile", but "Profiles - Medunjanin". You also removed the accessdate (the date where YOU added the ref, so I was actually respecting your work there), please leave this version be. --84.90.219.128 (talk) 18:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You really have some fetish for Medunjanin? I left your de la part, leave other things the way they are, please.
No sir, nothing weird, and I don't understand the aggressiveness. I just explained my reasons (1 - title of reference; 2 - accessdates in references are not to be removed), and I think I was polite. I have shown I am always open to debate and compromise, as shown by the introduction of the article. --84.90.219.128 (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If I break my ass to make every Bosnian player after the same pattern, and you are changing it every day, it gets me a little bit pissed, of course it does. I agreed that it stays your way about the club, let me do the rest of the page, please.
I understand your efforts. But Medunjanin's Deportivo profile cannot create comparisons to any other Bosnian player that you edit, because no other Bosnian player plays for Deportivo, I do not think I am countering your work in any way. However, if you do choose to re-insert the wrong title, at least please leave the accessdate (2 November 2015). If you check the edit history, you will see I have also "broken my ass" to improve the article vastly (I was formerly known as AlwaysLearning, but then asked an admin to destroy my account after a serious run-in with a troll - I had the intention of leaving forever, seems I cannot - now the edit history shows my name as VanishedUser), so I suppose we are on the same page there (improving the page of Mr. Medunjanin). --84.90.219.128 (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Why do you keep reverting it? It shouldn't be a drop down table at his page, as it's not on pages of players who scored way more goals for their national teams. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HankMoodyTZ (talk • contribs)
I gave you explanation, something you failed to do, you just revert and revert without explanation which will have you blocked. There is WP:CONSENSUS not to have these lists and if we do, then it should be collapsed. Articles are not for long lists of stats. Qed237(talk)15:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Chievo bought him in a definite deal before sold him to Sampdoria, please advise how to best shown this contractual relationship in infobox. Matthew_hktc14:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But he was on loan during season 2014-15, he was bought at the end of the season and immediately sold to Sampdoria.
No, he wasn't. In case you don't speak Italian, the article is only about the Sampdoria's player being transferred to Chievo, no mention of Zukanović. So, if you would please be nice and stop changing what is right? Thanks, mate!
Your recent editing history at Vedad Ibišević 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring at Vedad Ibišević. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
Hello, I'm Mattythewhite. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Asmir Begović without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I have restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have just shortened the citation, so that there is not gaps between = and letters, didn't mean to cause any offence. Sorry.
Greetings. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Asmir Begović, did not appear to be constructive and has been or will be reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. You have been told before, see #Live updatesQed237(talk)12:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Kerim Memija, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:46, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Amir Hadžiahmetović, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:31, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why, what's wrong with the page, I made it now, it wasn't made before or anything?
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kerim Memija (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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.
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. Qed237(talk)22:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. CatcherStormtalk10:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
January 2016
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Adnan Zahirović, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. GiantSnowman18:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get it, all I did was remove his statistics, which were not sourced. For everything else, I made improvements on the page.
I am not. If you look the Bosnian version of Zahirović's page, you can see that he has played for U21 team. If you add up his appearances for Čelik Zenica as listed on soccerway, it is 40, not 27. So technically, I am not doing anything wrong.
Stop doing this. It doesnt matter how the country was known offcally back then, it is Bosnia and Herzegovina for infobox purposes, so stop adding redirects and messing the infoboxes with that long useless country name which ruins the proper display of the infobox by stretching it totally unecessarilly. FkpCascais (talk) 18:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is a very important historical fact and it will stay so! — Preceding unsigned comment added by HankMoodyTZ (talk • contribs)
Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina was a country, Republika Srpska is an entity just like Federacija Bosne i Hercegovine, and it is not going to be used, četniku smrdljivi! — Preceding unsigned comment added by HankMoodyTZ (talk • contribs)
No! Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina was the country's official name from 1992 through 1997, when it was changed to only Bosnia and Herzegovina. You cannot teach me the history of my country. HankMoodyTZ (talk)HankMoodyTZ
Blocked
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for repeated addition of unsourced/false information at Adnan Zahirović. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Comments like those directed at FkpCascais above are entirely unacceptable, and using another language to avoid scrutiny does not speak in your favour either.Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bosnia Romania match
This match is indeed memorable victory. come from behind win IN QUALIFIERS that almost guaranteed Bosnia playing in playoffs and first ever victory over Romanians. If you do decide to leave it, please ensure you edit the IDENTICAL table on our statistics page too. Otherwise it's a mess to clean edits up. Since you removed this key match for Bosnia and one of the best matches of Safet Susic's career, perhaps you should remove Turkey win and Norway win. Those victories were useless in the bigger scheme of things (ie, no chance of direct birth at Euro 2008). BiHVolim (talk) 06:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I do think there are some unnecessary victories listed there, like victories in friendlies against Ghana, Ivory Coast, Mexico... There are a few truly memorable victories, like Italy, Slovenia, Lithuania, Cyprus, Greece, Slovakia, Denmark, Liechtenstein, and that is it.
No, it's ok, leave it out. But leave Mexico Ivory and Ghana, those are important IMO. Btw to sign your comments here you can use tilde sign 4 times without spaces. Example: ~~ ~~ (but join them together). BiHVolim (talk) 23:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good to debate whether or not to remove certain edits. Keep up the good comms. Would appreciate a barnstar banner in return on my talk page. BiHVolim (talk) 01:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lets settle this once and for all. The article Bosnia and Herzegovina clearly includes the period of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, so this second is clearly a sub-article of the first one. Before you came there has been a wide practice of using Bosnia and Herzegovina as birthplace for people born since 1992. You started changing that and replacing it with Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. When reverted, you edit-war to restore it back, so in my view you are adding a controversial edit that you dont have consensus for, you are edit-warring, you are disrupting Wikpedia to prove a point, and you are not engaging in any discussion to solve this. I am proposing you to stop making that controversial change and you should ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina others about this issue. If you continue to ignore and edit-war I will report you and ask for blocking your account. Balkans is a sensitive area and all we dont need are nationaistic POV-pushing editors with warrior mentality. FkpCascais (talk) 16:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is very simple, and please stop trying to show that I am a nacionalist and not you, who is pushing "Republika Srpska" as a state. One more thing, stop threating me please. Bosnia and Herzegovina was a part of SFR Yugoslavia until April 1992, when it declared independence, and was, by its Constitution, called Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina until 1997, when it became just Bosnia and Herzegovina. Deal with it, accept it, it is not controversial, you're just another Serb not accepting this country as it is, while acusing other of being nationalists and fascists. Qed237 agrees with me and it is your problem that you cannot deal with it! HankMoodyTZ (talk) 16:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article about the country that became independent in 1992 is Bosnia and Herzegovina. You are trying to prove some point at Bosnian nt article as well and you are opposed by other editors there as well, so find consensus first and stop edit-warring. I already explained to you the problem with the article Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, it is a sub-article of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and while the second incorporates all of Bosnia, the article you are adding doesnt. I dont have time now but I dont mind at all taking this to administrators if I see you continuing with this without establshed consensus (no, one user uninvolved in this issues doesnt count as consensus). You were bold, you were reverted, now discuss and create consensus, dont edit-war. FkpCascais (talk) 17:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the argument of the official name is not valid. Portugal is also officially known as Republica Portuguesa, Republic of Portugal, but we add Portugal. Seems to me that what you are trying to establish is not so much about the official name, but rather to "teach" readers how there was a different Bosnia and Herzegovina at early 1990s from the nowadays one, but article Bosnia and Herzegovina includes it all so that is why everyone used that article as country of birth. FkpCascais (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Četo, stop being annoying, and making threats. Find some other places to channel your frustrations, not by acusing me of some things I didn't do. Read the Constitution of the country that existed between 1992 and 1997, and you will find that its name is "Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina" in which players born between those years were born. I'm not clear why you are pushing "Republika Srpska" as country of someone's, besides the obvious, being a četnik. It was never a country, nor shall it be.HankMoodyTZ (talk) 18:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The only frustrated here is you. Bosnia and Herzegovina is the article that has been linked by all editors as country of birth after 1992, only you are objecting that, whetever changes you want to make you must obtain consensus for them or otherwise stop messing that and move on. I have to point out the insulting provocative remarc you made towards me, indicates well the level of (un)eduction you have. Stop being insultive and go to the wiki project of Bosnia and ask editors about this. Wikipedia is a consensus building project with collaborative efforts to archeve neutrality in all matters, it is not an "I know the truth so get out" kind of project. FkpCascais (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Go to www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina. It is a independent article about the country that existed form 1992 until 1997, as you can see. In references you can find Constitution of this country, which will further prove my point. I rest my case!HankMoodyTZ (talk) 19:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina existed legally until co-signing the Annex 4 of the Dayton Agreement. RBiH is the direct legal predecessor to the modern-day state of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Technically all persons born between 1992 and the Dayton signing should be under Republic category, however Bosnian Serbs would not acknowledge this as they proclaimed Republika Srpska on 9 January 1992 and celebrate this day even today. However UN did not fly RS flag in New York in front of its building, it flew RBiH flag as RBiH was the only recognized country worldwide at the time as RS was only an illegal entity formed by ethnic cleansing within RBiH borders. Those are well known facts, nothing more nothing less. BiHVolim (talk) 17:35, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going into a passionate debate over ethnic cleansing with two of you. Victimzing is not going to give points to no one here, otherwise I can start talking how my Serb family was killed and lost proprty in Bosnia and Croatia, but I want. That is irrelevant. The point is that even the irrecognised genocidal Independent State of Croatia is used as country of birth for people born within the territory they helded at that time. S if we are going to separate Bosnia and Herzegovina for the pre-Dayton period between the different factions, then we should, but I see no point in it. FkpCascais (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry bout your loss drugar, but we all are victims of the 90's war in some way or other. But the differences are clear as to what was a legal country and what were illegal entities (pre-Dayton agreement). BiHVolim (talk) 00:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BiHVolim Oh, it was not some drugar... nevermind. My mother family is from Sarajevo. About the issue, besides the valid use, or not, of the other entities, you have the question about how can you say "Trebinje, Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina" if the "Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina" nevel hold Trebinje and a person born there back then has not born actually in Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina? FkpCascais (talk) 01:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not stupid, just unnecessary as SFRJ is a country at that time, not SRBiH. However RBiH is another matter and we will discuss its use further. It's a learning experience for him. He is new. BiHVolim (talk) 12:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
Hello HANK, from Portugal,
again, yes, you got it, Haris Medunjanin article, some items I'd like to discuss with you (mind you, I could not show any consideration for your efforts and just do my thing, but I actually want to hear your opinion and see if it's possible to reach a compromise).
First of all, I commend you on updating/improving the article with refs, but two of them were already dead (I could replace the UEFA.com source, the U-21 match against Serbia, not the one for the game against Slovakia). If you notice, I did not touch the outline of infobox (even though I don't agree with it), and I also left the club names compressed, so more respect to you. I did add another ref to show that his manager at Deportivo did not play him, without taking any sides.
Now, for the discussion bits: 1 - early club career, why did you remove several wikilinks (the respective seasons, the article "Substitute (association football)"; 2 - the mention of Valladolid being relegated is worth mentioning, that is why several players change clubs now and then, and I did not mean to say Valladolid went down because of Mr. Medunjanin, no way; 3 - you compressed club names in story again, so out of respect for you I will not "touch" that anymore, promise; 4 - international career, no need to say "Serbia under-21", it's implied given the tournament.
All in all, we are both here to improve this (and other) article(s), so the more we talk the better I think. No need to say, please, I have a fetish about the player, I think I am being courteous. If any of the wikilinks you remove have to do with you needing refs for article, just whistle me and i'll add them.
Hello from Bosnia, I just did some little work on what you added, so I hope you will like it and that it will stay so. I wanted to ask you for help regarding one thing. We need a reference for the sentence "He signed on permanent basis the next season" regarding Gaziantepspor. And one more thing, did he ever play for Maccabi in Israeli League Cup? Thank you and I apologise for being rude before. HankMoodyTZ (talk) 13:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, we can work together anytime you need! Regarding your question, I will try to find sources for his Gaziantepspor permanent move, but it will be difficult because I don't understand any Turkish (but maybe Google Translate will help out). I also add refs for his last season with AZ and what happened in his last year at Valladolid (this NEEDS to be mentioned, as it would in any other player, only found out about it yesterday), and I will also create sub-sections for the club career, as standard procedure. I will also arrange the Valladolid section better to leave it more like you did the last time you edited.
Okay, thanks for the tip. If you don't like any of the additions I have made (in about 30/40 minutes I think I will be done), please tip me and we'll work it out. --84.90.219.128 (talk) 15:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done! Found many many more refs in Dutch, was not expecting that :) Now, some pointers: 1 - we don't write (about countries) "then this name", "present day that name", we write the name of the country then (Yugoslavia, Soviet Union, etc); 2 - you removed the Dutch nationality law link, fine it stays out; 3 - yes, I also used to write "rescinded", but I have asked around to English speakers, in the football world "terminated" is better; 4 - odd, but the ref you added for his Gaziantepspor move is already dead (!), I browsed around and found nothing else; 5 - I think we should leave those last two lines in the int'l career together, it's quite odd to have paragraphs with just ONE line (just my aesthetic opinion, of course); 6 - from yesterday, actually, the caption in his picture, I don't think he's playing there, picture seems to be from during the national anthem or something, you changed it also, fine by me.
Also, found a way (international career) to leave the last goal (Cyprus) in a separate paragraph, hopefully you'll like it. But remember this (only noticed it now after reading section better): we are not supposed to write about his every goal (for country or club), it's called OVERDETAIL by WP policies, you can ask around and see I am not misleading you. Of course, I have not removed anything ;) --84.90.219.128 (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I like it very much, than you. Just one more thing, we need to find a way to resolve his birth place. We cannot have both SFRY and Bosnia. You didn't like my phrase then and present-day, but we need to make it work. HankMoodyTZ (talk) 16:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's the best option to mention both countries. Also, I added a ref of his naming in Bosnia's 2014 World Cup squad, I hope it's okay.
Good job, I only made minor rewording overall (it contained redundancy, "2014 World Cup" mentioned twice in same line). I also added a link for his good spell in Turkey, if we could only arrange a "living" ref for his permanent signing with Gaziantep it would have been a great work from us both! I will continue looking --84.90.219.128 (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am all for taking off references for every goal, it could stay only at first and the two he scored against Cyprus, because they were important. Goals against Latvia, Luxembourg and Belarus can all be erased. HankMoodyTZ (talk) 16:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My fellow user, bad news: I just read source better, and it's from 1 SEPTEMBER 2012, so it's not for the permanent move, it's also for the loan :( I added one ref in Turkish, but don't know if it speaks of the loan (I imagine so, with that title - "Medunjanin the surprise"). --84.90.219.128 (talk) 17:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would rephrase the part for his international goals, e.g In the euro 2012 qualifying campaign, he contributed with three goals, against Albania, Belarus and Luxembourg, helping Bosnia to second place in group and qualifying to play-offs. What do you think? HankMoodyTZ (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, took a moment's rest, only saw your message now. OK, I do it. A couple of other things also: 1 - I re-rephrased his Dutch under-21 spell, some things are redundant (if you say the "Netherlands under-21 team" then you don't need to say "UEFA Under-21 championship", the U21 part is implied. Also, I had written "edition" instead of "tournament" because it flows better in that writing and to avoid "tournament" being repeated; however, if you do choose to revert me in the "edition" bit, please leave the rest.
2 - I also think that "On 2 June 2014, Medunjanin was called up to the 2014 FIFA World Cup" is redundant, but since you keep reinstating then i'll have to leave it be, no problem; 3 - what about the Gaziantepspor ref? We must remove it because it's not the right one, or the ref from the Kladionica web is from 1 September 2013 and they wrote "2012" by mistake. I don't know, but since you know Bosnian - I don't - and if you are sure it's for his permanent deal in the 2013 summer then we are 100% OK.
As you can see, we have a slight problem with Haris's page, since user Oleola is taking himself a right to remove content as he pleases. Now he has removed stats from his Netherlands U21 career from infobox, because they're unsourced. Could you help me to fix it, by reporting him and by finding sources? Thanks! HankMoodyTZ (talk) 04:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
February 2016
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Semir Štilić, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.--Oleola (talk) 12:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, regarding your edit on Smail Prevljak, WP:INFOBOXREF mentions clearly that "..References are not needed in infoboxes if the content is repeated (and cited) elsewhere or if the information is obvious...". Please stop adding the reference into the infobox. Thank you. MbahGondrong (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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 article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.--Oleola (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I come from Bosnia and unlike you, I watch almost all the games of our national players. So trust me that all the info is right. You just use soccerway as your only source and keep insisting on it, even though they don't have data on some games, especially friendlies of U21 teams like Bosnian one. So if you could stop being so stubborn and insisting on your data, it would be great. HankMoodyTZ (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for repeated addition of unsourced content, despite multiple warnings. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
Hi, you always edit pages but never or rarely add explanation what you changed in Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes). Please make it a habit to explain as it is really frustrating to keep trying to find out yor changes as they are so minor sometimes. TY see you in 1 month BiHVolim (talk) 20:56, 21 February 2016 (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).
Okay, first of all, I admit some of my mistakes. I did make another profile, but I did not use it for disruptive editing. That can be proved. I just used it to repair some redirects and to add stats for Miralem Pjanić and Edin Džeko. I didn't know it was forbidden, and therefore I apologise. Second thing, I was blocked for "unsourced content" I added to some pages, since the user who did it only used soccerway as source. The editor pointing it out was Oleola, who is known to be stubborn and doing what he likes, deleting content as unsourced when he doesn't like it. Simply by looking at his talk page, you will see how many he edit-warred. The guy blocking me was Giant Snowman, who I think has a personal beef with my, because of Adnan Zahirović page, which I by the way improved a lot. As I have proven many times before, my knowledge about Bosnian players I edited is huge. For example, we had a dispute about Smail Prevljak's apps for U21, and it turned out I was right, and my data stuck on the page. Therefore, I am of opinion that I did nothing wrong, just helped for the right data to be inserted. It is true that we had a couple of wars because of Bosnia and Herzegovina or Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, but that's completely other thing, unrelated to this, and hasn't yet been settled. So, if you could give me another chance, I would be on my best behaviour and try to stay away from disputes.HankMoodyTZ (talk) 03:16, 22 February 2016 (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.
You seem to have no idea that you did anything wrong here. It's hard to give advice to a person in that situation. When there is such a big disconnect between your opinion and our opinion, it's not easy to see how you can contribute here. Why not try working on some other website? User:GiantSnowman is one of our most experienced football editors. If you find yourself disagreeing with him, I don't know who you are ever going to agree with. EdJohnston (talk) 20:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I disagreed with him because I didn't know I must reference everything, as soon as I did that, it was fine. I was blocked for adding "unsourced content" to Edin Višća and Armin Hodžić pages, which is not true. Info was there long time before I registered, I just reverted Oleola's edits because he is forcing his edits aggresively, as you can see by how much edit wars it is being talked about on his talk page. People are constantly complaining that he reverts their edits and imposes his own will, should that also be tended to? I admitted my mistake od making another account, which I didn't use to do disruptive editing, only constructive. Once I realised I made a mistake, I apologised, doesn't that count for something? I really think I could contribute a lot, because I know Bosnian players I edit, and not a lot of other editors have that knowledge. So, if you would just have the understanding, it would be great. HankMoodyTZ (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You state: Second thing, I was blocked for "unsourced content" I added to some pages, since the user who did it only used soccerway as source. The editor pointing it out was Oleola, who is known to be stubborn and doing what he likes, deleting content as unsourced when he doesn't like it. You seem to be reserving the right to add unsourced content. You are also insisting on 'Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina' where the consensus appears to be against you. So your plan for the future is: (a) you will continue to add unsourced content, (b) you will continue to add 'Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina' whenever others correct you. EdJohnston (talk) 01:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do not intend to add unsourced content, as I already explained, it was on those pages long before my registration. I only reverted Oleola's edit, because he did it to spite me. You can look up his talk page and see the pattern of that behaviour, with several users complaining that he reverts them without reason. For RBiH, I will pursue to find a solution that is satisfying, so that it can be used in the future. That part of our history, when we were a Republic is a lot important to Bosnian people, since it is a symbol of our struggle to be independent, something I'm sure you understand and that it should not be neglected. HankMoodyTZ (talk) 14:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
February 2016 2
Please do not attempt to get others to edit for you while blocked. This is called proxying and is not permitted. If you continue to do so your ability to edit this page may be revoked. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks God someone finally blocked this account. Its a POV-pusher of the worste kind, subtile enough to make you not want to loose time reporting him, but persistent and with an atitude of WP:NOTHERE. Then, he is so passionate about Bosnia that he totally looses any neutrality regarding it, but of corse, that is exactly what he edits. With me it was a silly fight where he persistently inserts the wrong Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina article as country of birth in infoboxes of players, not understanding that the article Bosnia and Herzegovina already covers that period and ignoring that the huge country name title its totally ugly for use in infobox, but he wants to make some nationalistic point wwith it "teaching" people how there was some other Bosnia in those years (disrupting Wikipedia to make a point). The when I finally got him to the table to discuss it, and he is advised by anther editor to stop adding that for time being (diff) he just waits 2 days pretending to be "good" and then just returns to same old disruptive pattern of editing. Of course, when I confront him, I get cursed by him in the ugliest racistic manner, as here (filthy Četnik, with Četnik being the derrogative way Bosnians refer to Serbs) or here and a few more places, which is disgusting because he hopes cursing me in Serbo-Croatian will pass unoteced cause no one understands it. FkpCascais (talk) 06:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
HankMoodyTZ does have accurate knowledge about Bosnian players and he just needs to do better in sourcing his edits. Example, most of the text I applied to Bosnia and Herzegovina national football team is sourced (over 100 source links most of them are mine and structured using WikiPedia template to best of my ability). It took a lot of time, but as result none of my edits are lost there. HankMoodyTZ should read carefully what he is told about his edits and sourcing them correctly as this is how WikiPedia works. If he can't find sources, do not edit, simple. Move on. Not everyone is of Bosnian descent and does not know (or care) about these matters as much as HankMoodyTZ would; until there are proven facts. Remember, this is just en.wiki. Will people be so stubborn across all language wikis? I hope not, for their sakes. As far as Talk:Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, that is another matter and should not be used here as criteria for his ban. He may be correct on this subject. None of us can preclude the possibility. It is up to HankMoodyTZ to learn the ropes of WikiPedia and come back to us better for the experience. My opinion is that he can be beneficial to wikipedia, and losing him would be a shame. BiHVolim (talk) 08:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sir Sputnik, I did not know that and will stop, sorry. Regarding FkpCascais comments, the only one being a nationalist here is him, refusing to acknowledge Republic of Bosnia, just like most of Serbs do, but as pointed, that is not the reason for the block, and is still being discussed. Nonetheless, he orders me not to do it, just because he said it, just like his word is the law. I got a lot of people to agree with me on this matter, since it was a separate state from todays Bosnia. He kept on reverting the change, saying it redirects (which was a lie), than that it looks ugly etc. Everything just not to see that name of the state, don't know why he hates it that much.
Second of all, regarding things that got me blocked, I did not put the unsourced material there, I just reverted it because user Oleola uses soccerway and any game that isn't there, he just removes. For example, Edin Višća article, which was made a long time ago before I joined, contained the same data that he reverted yesterday since it was written. That is another personal thing, because I tried to convince this user that Bosnian Olympic football team never existed and that the cap Semir Štilić got for it, should be counted as full cap, just like to all other players participating in it. I made my case, it is up to you to decide now. I made some mistakes, I won't repeat them, but I will try to insert data as accurate as possible, which may involve some edit wars with stubborn editors. HankMoodyTZ (talk) 11:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even after being advised not to do proxing, he does it anyway (diff) and then erases the edit so it is hidden. He simply does whatever HE things is right and has no regard whtsoever towards the rules or other editors. A clear exemple that responds the question weather shuld he be kept blocked or not. Regarding his "fine" contributions BIHVolim talks about, updating careers is something that other editors can do just as well, and him adding unsourced disputed content into historical articles is certainly unwelcomed. Better to have one or two productive responsable editors than having 5-6 disruptive ones with the excuse of creating content. BTW, him being disruptive and tendentious, being prolific editor just makes it worste, it is rather an argument against. FkpCascais (talk) 12:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Get off his case dude.:) So what if all he does simple edits. He can learn to evolve into meaningful articles later. He asked me to fix something, totally legitimate request. It was up to me to help or not. I did it because I thought it was a correct decision - to fix an ERROR on wikipedia. Get off his case and please try spell checker for once, all your messages are full of typos. BiHVolim (talk) 12:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did it before I was warned, not after, just check the timestamp. I know you don't like me and it's fine, I don't like you either, but your pathetic attempts to "demonstrate" how wrong I am and what I do are just laughable. Just like I don't go on your talk page to talk trash about you, you shouldn't either do it on mine, so if you would be kind and back off a little bit, and if I can give you a friendly advice, work on your English. You are not a ruler nor a judge here, you have stated your case, and you should stop pointing out to "what have I done" because I'm sure that other can see it for themselves. HankMoodyTZ (talk) 14:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sockpuppetry
After getting your alternate account blocked and telling you off for proxying, I'd assumed that it went without saying that editing while logged out during a block is also sockpuppetry, but apparently not. If you want to have any hope of getting unblocked, you will stop this immediately. I would also take a very thorough look at the blocking policy, and particularly the section on block evasion. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This time, it wasn't me. I have a static IP adress, and even though I would like to help with some issues, like vandalism on Edin Džeko's page, I cannot. I've made my case and hope you will be leniant and allow me to contribute to wikipedia in the future. HankMoodyTZ (talk) 23:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Jaellee. Your recent edit to the page Sejad Salihović appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Jaellee (talk) 21:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
or 
) located above the edit window.
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Mattythewhite. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Edin Džeko. Your edits have been reverted or removed.
Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Adnan Zahirović. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. GiantSnowman 19:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Adnan Zahirović. GiantSnowman 20:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
