User talk:Governor Sheng

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be auto-archived by if there are more than 1.

Undefined sfn references

Hi, in Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Austro-Hungarian rule in Bosnia and Herzegovina you use {{sfn|Rezultati popisa žiteljstva u Bosni i Hercegovini|1912}}, but the source is not defined in either article, or as far as I can see anywhere on Wikipedia. This means that nobody can look it up, and the articles are added to Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. If you could supply the missing source then it would be appreciated. DuncanHill (talk) 14:56, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RS president

Please read this source [1], which states Vice President of Republika Srpska Davor Pranjić signed a decree promulgating the Law on Amendments to the Law on Police and Internal Affairs, officially declaring that Milorad Dodik has transferred his powers to him. This does not say anything about Dodik and Pranjic sharing power or only the power to sign laws being transferred. estar8806 (talk) ★ 15:55, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Estar8806: "The Croat Vice President of Republika Srpska stated he's not the acting president of Republika Srpska." https://bljesak.info/vijesti/politika/pranjic-prednost-ima-snsd-nisam-predsjednik-rs-a/535041 End of the discussion. Governor Sheng (talk) 15:56, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Add the source then. You're also in violation of WP:EDITWAR, I'll be raising this to WP:AN3. estar8806 (talk) ★ 16:06, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Estar8806, @Governor Sheng, Hey, I saw your dispute and tried to resolve it. Have a look. Cheers! Tahōmaru 多宝丸 ^talk 00:47, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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. Thank you. estar8806 (talk) ★ 16:06, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 2025

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Davor Pranjić) for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring. 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 review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:03, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you stop edit warring?

I provided strong references in the article Safvet-beg Bašagić, both from two strongest secondary sources (Hrvatska enciklopedija and LZMK), and you removed them. On the other side, I removed false references from book that even does not mention Basagic, as well as reference that was partially included, which degrades context. If you have better references, add them, but don't remove those I added. Thanks. GoodBosnian (talk) 12:45, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It takes two for that. Governor Sheng (talk) 13:14, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Croatian Eastern Orthodox theologians has been nominated for splitting

Category:Croatian Eastern Orthodox theologians has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ^SMason_Garrison 02:21, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Croatian Anglican theologians has been nominated for splitting

Category:Croatian Anglican theologians has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ^SMason_Garrison 02:22, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 2025

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Davor Pranjić) for a period of 3 months for edit warring. 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 review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:14, 30 October 2025 (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).

Governor Sheng (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I wasn't edit warring. It takes two for that. With whom have I been edit-warring exactly? I even left a message on the talk page, which got no replies.

Decline reason:

You resumed making the edits that got you blocked in the first place. That's continuing the edit war. 331dot (talk) 09:29, 30 October 2025 (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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Governor Sheng (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand that my edit summaries sounded rather harsh. And I apologise for that. However, in my defence, I did explain my reasoning before making an edit on the talk page. Nobody responded for days. I assumed it was good for me to change the disputed text, especially after the whole issue had already been resolved, especially after a subsequent political event (the election of an actual acting president). I did apologise to other editors for my harsh remarks earlier. I think the 3-month block was unnecessary, since I, before editing, had already resorted to the talk page to avoid edit-warring. Even today, I continue to discuss the talk page after realising another editor had replied to my comments.

Accept reason:

Please keep discussing and find a consensus before making any further reverts on that page, and ideally let someone else perform the edit. If it's as uncontroversial as you think, you'll manage to find someone else to make the edit for you. Ask them directly. Ideally someone who previously opposed it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:31, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Theological and Catechetic Institute in Mostar

Hello, Governor Sheng. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Theological and Catechetic Institute in Mostar, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 07:07, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]