User talk:Nikolai Boyanov

Hello, Nikolai Boyanov, and

An edit that you recently made to

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Drmies (talk) 22:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Taste of Love (EP). Drmies (talk) 15:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Twice into List of Twice concert tours. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 10:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Paper9oll. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Jihyo, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 11:38, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Paper9oll. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Jihyo, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:05, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Paper9oll. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Feel Special (song), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 10:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at More & More (Twice song), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 10:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at I Can't Stop Me, you may be blocked from editing. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 10:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm EN-Jungwon. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Strawberry Moon (song), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. EN-Jungwon 08:28, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at List of Inkigayo Chart winners (2021), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. EN-Jungwon 08:29, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Paper9oll. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Got the Beat, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 01:48, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 19:25, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm EN-Jungwon. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, 2022 in South Korean music, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. -- EN-Jungwon 15:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 09:52, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Paper9oll. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, List of M Countdown Chart winners (2022), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 10:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Girls (Aespa song), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 10:27, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at 2022 in South Korean music, you may be blocked from editing. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 07:50, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Jung Eun-ji. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 11:29, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at 2022 in South Korean music. Archer1234 (talk) 15:35, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours 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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Daniel Case (talk) 18:00, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at GWSN. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 07:38, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 07:57, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the citation. If you would, please consider adding a "|trans-title= " e.g. a Korean translation of "|title= "? Thank you Adakiko (talk) 12:44, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at List of Music Bank Chart winners (2023). — 🍊 Paper9oll 🍊 (🔔 • 📝) 08:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — 🍊 Paper9oll 🍊 (🔔 • 📝) 08:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Twice. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:03, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Momoland. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 14:25, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Dahyun. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 03:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. Verifiability is a core Wikipedia policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:11, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Please ensure that when the block expires you include reliable sources when changing and updating content and that acknowledge other editors when they raise concerns.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:11, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

is closed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:56, 19 February 2023 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I didn't know about the unsourced things that I have done. Now I know which K-pop sites I can't add as a source. (I've read "WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources#Considered unreliable" and understood everything. I'll be careful next time. It wasn't on purpose.) Nikolai Boyanov (talk) 19:45, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am closing this request, as the block has expired. JBW (talk) 14:04, 25 February 2023 (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.

Considering the number of warnings you have had, over a long period, about the need for citing sources, saying that you didn't know suggests that you didn't try to know. JBW (talk) 14:07, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been asked to use edit summaries, but you are still not doing so. Please do use them, as it helps editors to get an indication of what your edits do without having to click on each one in the editing history and check them. JBW (talk) 12:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It will really be silly to have to block you from editing over something so simple as using edit summaries, but if repeatedly asking you to do so fails to get you to change, then it will have to come to that. JBW (talk) 16:40, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Dear U. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 14:01, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have received several messages asking you to use edit summaries, over a period of almost 10 months (more than 19 months if we include a message which mentioned edit summaries, though that wasn't the main purpose of the message). Since you received the last of those messages, 86% of your edits have had no edit summaries. In view of what that message said, you will not be surprised to learn that, with great reluctance, I have blocked you from editing. At present the block is for two weeks, but it may be ended at any time before that if you can convince an administrator that you will provide edit summaries for all your edits in future. However, that may be difficult, in view of the fact that your unblock request for your last block said that you would not continue with the kind of editing which led to the block, but you have in fact continued; also, the length of the current block is influenced by the fact that a block of one week failed to result in a change. If you believe there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock. To do so, first read the guide to appealing blocks, and then add the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at the bottom of this page. JBW (talk) 14:37, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

---

Request reason:

The reason why I have 86% without my edit summaries is not because I don't want to describe the changes. It's just... I rarely gave an edit summary. For some articles I don't give a summary, because I saw edit history that other users don't gave a summary and that's why. But I'll not be like other users and describe my changes. This time I'm not lying. Thank You! Nikolai Boyanov (talk) 15:37, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

OK, I'm happy to give you another chance. JBW (talk) 15:51, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. Verifiability is a core Wikipedia policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:37, 8 March 2023 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Don't tell me which article. I know what wоул happened. I thought that even though there are no sources for Bubble for Actors, Sports and Treasure Hunter, doesn't mean that we cannot add these. If you want to revert my edit, I've found sources (if it's too late). (https://www.onews.tv/news/articleView.html?idxno=131352 - Actors) (https://www.inews24.com/view/1454855 - Treasure Hunter) (https://www.joynews24.com/view/1439799 - Sports) Please unblock me. I don't like unblocking. Every time (not every) I'm forgetting about sources, but doesn't mean that I'll not read the guide. Nikolai Boyanov (talk) 9:14 pm, 8 March 2023, Wednesday (8 days ago) (UTC+1)

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. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:13, 16 March 2023 (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.

To unblocking admin, please take a look at this edit first before deciding on whether to unblock. The reasoning given above clearly doesn't match up with the actions, removing References column and adding bunch of unsourced content in the every same edit, which in my judgement is clearly an attempt to avoid scrutinization otherwise I'm not sure what exactly is their goal in doing so. And with that many warnings to stop adding unsourced materials for more than 1 year already, clearly something is very wrong here. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 05:06, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Super Show 9: Road. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 06:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Up10tion has an edit summary that appears to be inadequate, inaccurate, or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. Thank you. Lightoil (talk) 00:54, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at NiziU. Lightoil (talk) 15:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• A reminder about edit summaries. Since the beginning of April, you have made 85 edits. For 37 of those, you provided an edit summary, but for 48 you didn't. I also note the edit mentioned above by Lightoil, where you actually gave an edit summary which totally misrepresented what the edit did, which is, of course, even worse than no edit summary at all. I have not checked every one of your edits to see whether there are other examples of misleading edit summaries, but for now I am willing to assume it was just once. Please be more careful about providing appropriate edit summaries. I also noticed an edit summary of yours in which you said "I will find a reliable source in the coming days (Not sure when)." That is unacceptable: don't add material to an article until you can provide a citation to a reliable source. A vague promise that you will find one sometime somewhere is not good enough: anyone could say that about anything. Considering (1) the number of messages you have had about the need for reliable sources, from December 2020 to today, (2) the number of messages you have had mentioning edit summaries, from July 2021 onwards, and (3) the fact that you have already been blocked four times because of these problems in the past, you are running close to the wind. So far you have had blocks ranging in duration from 24 hours to 3 weeks, but it is highly likely that if you are blocked again the blocking administrator will take the view that, since such short blocks have failed to have the desired effect, you will need to be blocked for much longer. I hope that doesn't happen, and I am writing this message in the hope that it will persuade you to take the necessary steps to ensure that it doesn't. JBW (talk) 19:34, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Lightoil (talk) 01:43, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since you continue to not use edit summaries like you promised you would, and more importantly since you are outright refusing to source your edits, you have been blocked indefinitely. You've had many chances are are making a mockery of the project and the people who have unblocked you previously by continuing to edit in the pattern you've explicitly promised you would not do. And no you're not forgetting, you've been warned and discussed it too often to still forget. At this point it's clear you're deliberately and willfully ignoring the requirements to source your edit which is A) disruptive to the project and B) just saying you refuse to abide by the rules and policies of this project and don't think they apply to you. Canterbury Tail talk 09:13, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Canterbury Tail talk 09:13, 24 April 2023 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I don't know how. I'm adding editing summaries, but the new reason that I don't add any of them, is that adding only one word for the edit summary, like "Added fix.", "Mini Fix", "'New Info" and etc., is pointless. But for sources, I'm still adding sources, BUT only reliable. But for Japan I don't know what sources should I add. Can you please tell me are there any reliable sources in Japanese, so I can add for NiziU's Live with U 2023 (My edit that was removed since I didn't add reliable source)? And can you please unblock me? (I don't like being blocked indefinitely.) How can I make edit summaries more understandable? Nikolai Boyanov (talk) 8:09 pm, Yesterday (UTC+2)

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. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:22, 25 April 2023 (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 declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

I'm not gonna write the same thing. I had to go on with... Every time when I get blocked, I read about why I'm being blocked and I understood it. I'm not doing anything wrong. But being blocked for adding rarely edit summaries or forgetting about reliable sources. is a teeny-tiny bit of unacceptable. I didn't caused any damage, disruption or etc. If I continue to make the same mistakes after unblocking me, this time don't block me and ignore me. This is what I didn't think to write earlier. Nikolai Boyanov (talk) 03:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

In order to be unblocked you will need to persuade an administrator that you understand the reasons for the block and will not do the same again. What you have written here is a very convincing indication not only that you don't understand the reasons for the block, but also that you are likely to do the same again. I also note your remark about "forgetting" about reliable sources, but it is perfectly clear that it was not a matter of forgetting: you knew what you were doing. JBW (talk) 08:36, 26 April 2023 (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.

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.

Hello, Nikolai Boyanov. It has been over six months since you last edited the

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:38, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]