Иованъ

Formerly most edits as Inatan. Then Renamed user 1n2n3n4n5n. Then Renamed user Inatan. Then Ivan.

Archive 1

July 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  UtherSRG (talk) 00:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello! Isn't this a little extreme? Blocking without discussion (beyond templates with "custom reason")? I have never edit warred and stray away from disruptive editing. For the block, this distills to splitting the history, which I had no idea was an issue in this case. You could have notified me of that on my talk page. As difficult as it may be for you to have to move these pages back, with my poor Internet connection it is almost infinitely more difficult for me to move pages to mainspace. I have absolutely no intention of repeating this now that I know about the error it causes, and since you moved it back a second time, I would not have moved it back again without discussion. Ivan (talk) 00:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Splitting the history via copy-paste move, and ignoring my previous requests for you to fix the unusable references, which was the reason the articles were draftified in the first place. Take some time to formulate how you will address fixing the references, then when the block expires, fix them. - If you make an unblock request, another admin may have additional words to help keep you from straying. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Ignoring my previous requests for you to fix the unusable references. You never explained how. I assumed it was because the length of the references section clashed with the layout of the taxonbar. Can you please elaborate as to how the references are "unusable"? More importantly, since I have shown no signs of edit warring beyond 1RR, can you unblock me yourself and discuss this in a civil manner? Ivan (talk) 01:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Cirsium × stiriacum moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Cirsium × stiriacum. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because you split the history by doing a copy/paste move from draft. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. UtherSRG (talk) 00:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I understand your objection to copy/paste moves, which I was unaware were problematic in the case of articles for which I was the sole contributor, but am now. But it is a poor translation is your opinion of a single paragraph within the article, which is probably better to discuss on the talk page. If you object with unusable references need to be fixed to including the inclusion of quotations from the public domain descriptions of the hybrids, why not just delete everything after "quote="? Then explain your reasoning on the talk page. I don't actually rely in the article on more than 1-2 sentences from those quotations yet, and the reason I had included them in the first place was so that I could expand the article from them, which is exactly what would have happened had you waited a day. Ivan (talk) 01:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Cirsium × przybylzkii moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Cirsium × przybylzkii. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it is a poor translation and failure to fix the unusable references and splitting the history. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. UtherSRG (talk) 00:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Draft (Is this what you had in mind?)

Иованъ
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Plantae
Clade:	Tracheophytes
Clade:	Angiosperms
Clade:	Eudicots
Clade:	Asterids
Order:	Asterales
Family:	Asteraceae
Genus:	Cirsium
Species:	C. × przybylzkii
Binomial name
Cirsium × przybylzkii Eichenfeld

Cirsium × przybylzkii (Cirsium greimleri × oleraceum) is a hybrid between Cirsium greimleri and Cirsium oleraceum.

It is known from 16 herbarium specimens as of 2020.

Distribution

It is found in the Rottenmann and Wölz Tauern, Schladming Tauern, Seckau Tauern, Lavanttal Alps, and Karawanks.

Description

Cirsium greimleri dominates flower traits, albeit with intermediate colour. C. oleraceum and C. greimleri alternately dominate leaf traits, sometimes with intermediate traits such as a C. oleraceum like form with C. greimleri idumentum.

History

Identified by pharmacist B. Przybylski on 20 July 1885, after whom Michael Ritter von Eichenfeld named it.

See also

• List of Cirsium species

References

References

Cirsium × reichardtii moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Cirsium × reichardtii. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it is a poor translation and failure to fix unusable references and splitting the history. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. UtherSRG (talk) 00:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Draft (Is this what you had in mind?)

Extended content

Иованъ Scientific classification Kingdom: Plantae Clade: Tracheophytes Clade: Angiosperms Clade: Eudicots Clade: Asterids Order: Asterales Family: Asteraceae Genus: Cirsium Species: C. × reichardtii Binomial name Cirsium × reichardtii Juratzka Cirsium × reichardtii (Cirsium greimleri × palustre) is a hybrid between C. greimleri and C. palustre. It is known from 38 herbarium specimens as of 2020. Distribution It is found in the Rottenmann and Wölz Tauern, Schladming Tauern, Seckau Tauern, Lavanttal Alps, and Karawanks. Description The flowers tend to appear close to C. greimleri, but there is variation between individuals closer to C. greimleri and individuals closer to C. palustre. See also List of Cirsium species References References

Cirsium × scopolii moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Cirsium × scopolii. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it is a poor translation and unusable references need to be fixed, and history was split via copy/paste. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. UtherSRG (talk) 00:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Draft (Is this what you had in mind?)

Иованъ
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Plantae
Clade:	Tracheophytes
Clade:	Angiosperms
Clade:	Eudicots
Clade:	Asterids
Order:	Asterales
Family:	Asteraceae
Genus:	Cirsium
Species:	C. × scopolii
Binomial name
Cirsium × scopolii E. Khek. ex Leuter et Zeitler

Cirsium × stiriacum (Cirsium erisithales × greimleri) is a hybrid between C. erisithales and C. greimleri.

It is known from 48 herbarium specimens as of 2020.

Distribution

It is found almost throughout the range of C. greimleri.

Description

Traits are thoroughly mixed.

History

First identified on 13 July 1845 by Tommasini or more likely one of his collectors on Snežnik. But its first written mention dates to 1856. The first binary name published, C. × scopolii Sch.Bip. ex Nyman (1879), is a nomen nudum, which also applies to C. × scopolianum Sch.Bip. ex Focke (1881), making the first currently valid name that published by Khek in 1908.

See also

• List of Cirsium species

References

References

Cirsium × stroblii moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Cirsium × stroblii. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it is a poor translation and unusable references need to be fixed, and history was split via copy/paste move. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. UtherSRG (talk) 00:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Draft (Is this what you had in mind?)

Иованъ
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Plantae
Clade:	Tracheophytes
Clade:	Angiosperms
Clade:	Eudicots
Clade:	Asterids
Order:	Asterales
Family:	Asteraceae
Genus:	Cirsium
Species:	C. × stroblii
Binomial name
Cirsium × stroblii Hayek

Cirsium × stroblii (Cirsium greimleri × spinosissimum) is a hybrid between C. greimleri and C. spinosissimum.

3 herbarium specimens as of 2020.

Distribution

It is found only in the Rottenmann and Wölz Tauern, although the range overlap extends to nearby ranges.

Description

There are few specimens, but it is close in appearance to C. heterophyllum × spinosissimum, differring in having broader leaves with short lobes, without tomentose undersides.

History

Identified by August von Hayek in the summer of 1906 from a specimen collected on the slopes of a ravine that feeds the Großer Bösenstein lake by Gabriel Strobl in 1867.

See also

• List of Cirsium species

References

References

Appeal of block administered without warning

Abandoned unblock request

{{unblock|reason= Background of Block I have been an editor for years without controversy apart from one recent issue resulting from my unfamiliarity with certain BLP guidelines, but was blocked without prior warning, it seems, for improper Draft>AfC>Mainspace procedure, following what I thought was an acceptable Draft>Mainspace alternative (admittedly resulting in page history errors I was unaware of) as I had understood moving the page back was an acceptable alternative from @Queen of Hearts' comment, "per WP:DRAFTOBJECT, you are free to move a draftifed page back to mainspace" in this exchange. My mistake was in moving it via copy-paste, which I was unaware at the time was problematic in cases where I was the sole contributor. The only other reason given for the block besides disruptive editing when I inquired (above) was a reference to a vague, "custom" instruction too much has gone wrong with the references made several weeks ago, with little explanation beyond that; I had assumed it to mean one thing (a wrapping issue), but clearly it turned out to be another. Now that I have been made aware, I would not under any circumstances consider continuing to skip the AfC procedure if that is what this administrator requires, since a discussion has ensued and the WP:CIVIL thing to do is to resolve these issues on the talk pages. I have never edit warred in the formal sense, nor even gone beyond a single revert without believing that I had resolved the issue in the eyes of the objecting editor. I fully intend to show this same respect for procedure in the case brought to my attention regarding the moving of pages between Draftspace and Mainspace. I would have responded the same to a warning, or even a simple talk page message. Therefore, I believe a block is unmerited, and a 2 week block is PUNITIVE. Questions about Draftspace and Mainspace And just in case it is not clear, I am not using WP:DRAFTOBJECT in my objection to the block, although the wording other editors, including the author of the page, but excluding editors with a conflict of interest, have a right to object to draftifying the page. If an editor raises an objection, move the page back to mainspace and, if necessary, list it at AfD does seem to indicate that my move of the page from Draftspace back to Mainspace was in order (though not by copy-paste). I tried actually moving a draft page to mainspace once and couldn't do it, so I assumed that wasn't possible for a non-admin. I can't remember what my problem was, and being blocked at this very moment, I have no means of carrying out the experiment again. Unrelated to blocking-unblocking procedure, how does one carry the history over from Draftspace to Mainspace if not through AfC (not that I am going to skip AfC for these pages, but I do want to understand what Queen of Hearts was referring to)? Whatever the case, with the wording of DRAFTOBJECT, surely one can see the reason for my confusion. Appeal Reason 1 Rather (Reason 1), per the deterrence is based upon the likelihood of repetition clause of WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE, I am appealing this block on the grounds that, based on my record so far, the chances of repeating the ~error of not moving from Draftspace to Mainspace using AfC (because I still don't know how to move a page from draftspace to mainspace it is a true error), and the very real error of performing a copy-paste move, are 0 now that I have been informed of the issue. All other reasons cited were custom cases not detailed clearly anywhere in Wikipedia policy known to me† to the extent that would justify draftifying. But again, as always, I remain committed to reaching consensus on the talk page regarding those points, and neither had nor have any intention of resolving the issues that resulted in the articles' redraftification through any means other than WP:CONSENSUS. † Admittedly, a very small corpus. Appeal Reason 2 Additionally (Reason 2), given the clause accounts used exclusively for disruption may be blocked indefinitely without warning in WP:DISRUPTONLY is the only case for which the customary warning merited by WP:BEFOREBLOCK can be deferred, barring active disruption which was not the case since the block came fully 22 minutes after my last edit in what had been a brief, isolated chain of edits, it is troubling that the blocking admin must have by extent considered this account "used exclusively for disruption". Perhaps this is an effect of the state of my talk page? From my perspective, it is difficult to see how multi-year efforts like List of Glagolitic inscriptions (16th century),† multi-month efforts like List of caves of Zagrebačka gora, Cirsium greimleri or more standard, often month-long efforts like Veternica (cave) and Veternica bibliography, Angular Glagolitic, Pre-Greek substrate bibliography, Pazinčica, Blagaj Castle and Krka (Adriatic Sea), to name a few, could fall under disruption. Looking at my contributions, it should be obvious I am Here to build an encyclopedia. † Or the unfinished, unpolished List of Glagolitic printed works and Lists of Glagolitic manuscripts, the latter taking over a decade to compose. Basically, an appeal on WP:GAB† points 1 that the block is no longer necessary because I understand ... and will not do it again (regarding the copy-paste moves) and 2 that the block was not necessary to prevent damage or disruption (policy dictates I be warned first). † An essay page but incorporated into the When to unblock section of the Administrators' guide, within which this unblock request aims to fulfil the conditions of "an appropriate unblock request". Alternatively, in terms of the boilerplate text this is an appeal based on fulfillment of: the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia ( I always engage in discussion as soon as an error is pointed out and the solution is unclear), or the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you have been blocked for ( copy-paste moves), will not continue to cause damage or disruption ( a talk page message would have sufficed), and will make useful contributions instead ( as always). I bear no ill will towards the blocking admin for his procedural mistake and wish to work together with him to improve the hybrid pages by bringing them into conformity with both policy and his additional criteria, whenever he decides to provide more detail concerning what exactly he wants changed. I'm in no rush for that. But at the moment, this block is preventing me from improving an unrelated article and publishing a chain of articles I have written on subjects related to said article. And a lot can happen in 2 weeks. Sincerely, Ivan (talk) 20:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)}}

In my experience, shorter requests are far more likely to be read, and acted on. A simple "In retrospect, I shouldn't have done that. I understand better now what I did, and it won't happen again" is typically FAR more productive than a long lawyer-ish essay.

Your commitment not to continue to cause damage or disruption is only "a talk page message would have sufficed", and your pledge to make useful contributions instead appears to me to imply that you believe that you've done nothing wrong "as always".

Regarding your point about a warning being required before issuing a block, on the very same page you linked to, there is a passage that reads "However, warnings are not a prerequisite for blocking.". My take on this request is that this misunderstanding of the blocking policy is most of your argument for being unblocked (it's even in the section heading).

I will leave this request open for another uninvolved administrator to review. SQL^{Query Me!} 20:59, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Articles for deletion (List of armed conflicts between Bosnia and Serbia)

@Liz There have been substantial changes to the article since its nomination and removal of content seen as problematic in this discussion. Does this make a difference in participants' assessment? Waiting for an admin to attend my block appeal so currently unable to respond at the AfD page, but my final Redirect position remains the same. Ivan (talk) 23:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Veternica bibliography moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Veternica bibliography. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it does not pass the test for a standalone page under WP:NOPAGE, WP:NLIST.. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello! Could you please elaborate with quotations from those policies? Regarding WP:NOPAGE, the Single article bibliographies guideline at WikiProject Bibliographies recommends bibliographies with fewer than 10 possible entries by placed in the Further reading section of a parent article rather than a standalone page. The article you have draftified contains 62 entries, and some are duplicates because it is arranged topically, which is another reason for not merging it. Editors tend to use Wikipedia:Further_reading#Limited to delete entries from further reading sections they consider too long, to say nothing of Bibliography sections. But if the subject's notability has been established (as I believe it has), the presence of all individual items remains justified (note that Veternica bibliography is a curated list, consisting only of entries dealing extensively with the cave).

As for WP:NLIST, the article links to Veternica in its lead, and the notability of the subject is established in that article. Its notability as a bibliography article is supported by the large number of works that have been written about it, referenced in the article. I recommend reading WP:MOS-BIBLIO before replying if you have not already. The WikiProject Bibliographies page also contains helpful information. I know very few editors publish bibliography articles here, so your unfamiliarity with them is perfectly understandable.

If you still have objections, please feel free to bring them up with me here. If you see where you went wrong, would you mind moving the draft back to mainspace yourself? Thank you. Ivan (talk) 03:12, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Bibliographies#Notability_of_bibliography_articles: "For a bibliography on a topic to be notable, the members of that bibliography should be discussed as a group in reliable sources. This discussion may take the form of a published standalone bibliography on the topic, a bibliography in a published reliable source on the topic or recommendations for further reading on the topic published in a reliable source on the topic." While all the articles/books in this bibliography are indeed about Veternica, you have supplied no evidence of secondary, independent, reliable sources discussing this set of articles together as a bibliography. It appears you have just compiled all the research on the subject here, which is a form of WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH and not an appropriate subject for a page. Select material can go into the Veternica article as a bibliography, but unless you have evidence of all these sources being covered collectively as a list, I will not move this back into mainspace. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:43, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

That was the edit I was about to make when I discovered the block. Please paste the following over the lead of the article before moving it back to the mainspace:

"This is a bibliography of works on the [[Veternica (cave)]] cave. The most recent bibliography dedicated to Veternica was published in 2011,<ref>{{cite book |date=2011 |first1=Vlasta |last1=Krklec |firs2=Lorka |last2=Lončar Uvodić |first3=Eduard |last3=Vasiljević |chapter=Bibliografija |trans-chapter=Bibliography |title=Špilja Veternica |isbn=978-953-265-073-0 |trans-title=Veternica cave}}</ref> but the most comprehensive bibliographies were published in the 2023 edition of ''Speleolog'', covering its evolution,<ref>{{cite journal |date=2024-03-04 |first1=Petra |last1=Bajo |first2=Bosiljka |last2=Glumac |first3=Damir |last3=Lacković |first4=Ira D. |last4=Sasowsky |first5=Andrej |last5=Stroj |title=Kako je nastala špilja Veternica? |pages=26–41 |url=https://hrcak.srce.hr/314780 |journal=Speleolog |volume=71 |eissn=2623-7385 |issue=71 |trans-title=How did Veternica Cave form?}}</ref> history<ref>{{cite journal |date=2024-03-04 |first1=Zoran |last1=Bolonić |first2=Vlado |last2=Božić |first3=Marijan |last3=Čepelak |first4=Damir |last4=Lacković |first5=Hrvoje |last5=Malinar |first6=Tila |last6=Medenica |title=Povijest speleoloških istraživanja i uređivanja špilje Veternice |pages=8–25 |url=https://hrcak.srce.hr/314779 |journal=Speleolog |volume=71 |eissn=2623-7385 |issue=71 |trans-title=History of Speleological Exploration and Development of the Veternica Cave}}</ref> and archaeology.<ref>{{cite journal |date=2024-03-04 |first=Marko |last=Banda |title=Arheologija špilje Veternice |pages=42–57 |url=https://hrcak.srce.hr/314781 |journal=Speleolog |volume=71 |eissn=2623-7385 |issue=71 |trans-title=The Archaeology of Veternica Cave}}</ref> An even more extensive bibliography was produced by the ''Komisija za speleologiju HPS-a'' in 2021, but it remains unpublished.<ref>{{cite journal |date=2024-03-04 |first1=Nela |last1=Bosner |first2=Ruđer |last2=Novak |title=Zašto su prekinuta speleološka istraživanja Veternice? |pages=82–85 |url=https://hrcak.srce.hr/314785 |journal=Speleolog |volume=71 |eissn=2623-7385 |issue=71 |trans-title=Why were the speleological explorations of Veternica discontinued?}}</ref>{{rp|84}}

Ivan (talk) 18:43, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

List of caves of Zagrebačka gora moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to List of caves of Zagrebačka gora. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because there is no evidence demonstrated that this subject is notable per WP:NLIST and WP:NOTDATABASE. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

@Dclemens1971 WP:NOTDATABASE does not apply. This list contains nowhere near that level of information, and a number of individual entries deserve articles of their own or already have them (as is the case with Veternica).

I have established its notability with the following, which I will ask you to paste over the lead of the article before moving it back to mainspace:

"This is a list of [[cave]]s on the [[Zagrebačka gora]] massif. As of 2011, 64 speleological objects are known to be on Medvednica.<ref>{{cite journal |date=2011-06-14 |first1=Roman |last1=Ozimec |first2=Dubravko |last2=Šincek |title=Speleological objects of NW Croatia mountains |pages=201–232 |url=https://hrcak.srce.hr/70945 |journal=Radovi Zavoda za znanstveni rad Varaždin |eissn=1848-7890 |issue=22}}</ref>{{rp|224}} :The first author to compose a list of caves on this massif was {{ill|Dragutin Hirc|hr|Dragutin Hirc}} in 1905,<ref name="Hrc1905" />{{rp|154}} but although the list grew with the work of {{ill|hr|Josip Poljak|hr|Josip Poljak}}<ref name="Pljk1934" />{{rp|134,135}} and others<ref name="Bčć1945" /> before the advent of modern cave exploration, the first comprehensive list of caves on the massif to take advantage of [[speleology|speleological]] discoveries did not come until Božičević's ''Podzemni krški fenomeni planine Medvednice kraj Zagreba'' was published in 1975.<ref name="Bžč1974" /> Since then, there have been several updates, the most current being the ''Katastar speleoloških objekata Republike Hrvatske'', closed to the public but with exerpts available at ''Bioportal''.<ref>{{cite web |date=2015-2024 |author=Ministarstvo zaštite okoliša i zelene tranzicije Republike Hrvatske |title=Katastar speleoloških objekata Republike Hrvatske |url=https://bioportal.hr/gis |website=Bioportal}}</ref>" Ivan (talk) 17:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

A list of the notable caves might be fine but this is an overwhelming amount of information about a set of non-notable subjects (only one cave appears to have an article?). When your block expires you can do what you wish but as a new page reviewer I did not see this as something that would pass the bar were it to be brought to AfD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

The only thing stopping me from posting 5-10 new articles I have written on the individual caves is this block. If you intend to AfD the article, then I would prefer you wait until my appeal has gone through so i can defend it there. But I would rather the consensus-based approach with more experienced editors at AfD than a relegation AfC, whose backlog is even worse than for block appellation process. Per WP:NLIST, editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles, but the individual entries in the list do not need to be independently notable, and in this the notability of the the group or set is established by the lead that I asked you to copy-paste over the current lead. Ivan (talk) 18:21, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I am not planning to bring it to AfD since draftify was the option in front of me. Right now it's a draft and it'll be ready for you to edit when you're back. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)