No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 163: | Line 163: | ||
::::I am not denying that it is real, the main thing is, is it relevant to that article? The article is about Greeks in general, not John Adam's view of Greeks. Such a comment might be more applicable on the article about that president instead. Ilirpedia please read the [[wp:reliable]] and [[wp:secondary} policy on sources and content. Read that whole page, otherwise your going to end up in complicated situations. Its happened to a fair number of Albanian editors, don't place yourself in a situation of becoming another scalp on the list of bans. I don't want to see that happen. You have the potential and drive, but it needs to be done with policy and guidelines. Best.[[User:Resnjari|Resnjari]] ([[User talk:Resnjari|talk]]) 16:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC) |
::::I am not denying that it is real, the main thing is, is it relevant to that article? The article is about Greeks in general, not John Adam's view of Greeks. Such a comment might be more applicable on the article about that president instead. Ilirpedia please read the [[wp:reliable]] and [[wp:secondary} policy on sources and content. Read that whole page, otherwise your going to end up in complicated situations. Its happened to a fair number of Albanian editors, don't place yourself in a situation of becoming another scalp on the list of bans. I don't want to see that happen. You have the potential and drive, but it needs to be done with policy and guidelines. Best.[[User:Resnjari|Resnjari]] ([[User talk:Resnjari|talk]]) 16:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC) |
||
::::::Heed my advice, by the way this kind of behavior [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ilirpedia&diff=801753427&oldid=801749663], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ilirpedia&diff=801753462&oldid=801753427] which this particular editor has done with me in the past is a no. Watch out for baiting in such situations, see [[wp:bait]] and [[Wikipedia:Don't feed the trolls|Don't feed the trolls]].[[User:Resnjari|Resnjari]] ([[User talk:Resnjari|talk]]) 17:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC) |
::::::Heed my advice, by the way this kind of behavior [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ilirpedia&diff=801753427&oldid=801749663], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ilirpedia&diff=801753462&oldid=801753427] which this particular editor has done with me in the past is a no. Watch out for baiting in such situations, see [[wp:bait]] and [[Wikipedia:Don't feed the trolls|Don't feed the trolls]].[[User:Resnjari|Resnjari]] ([[User talk:Resnjari|talk]]) 17:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC) |
||
::::::::Restore your page as you wish when you are online. The editor in question wants me to revert a third time [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ilirpedia&diff=801755138&oldid=801755117] and claim the usual edit warring gibberish. Remember this is your userpage, as [[WP:TPO]] policy states that "Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling, and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived." In this case you are just citing what you consider is fact by quoting an American president.[[User:Resnjari|Resnjari]] ([[User talk:Resnjari|talk]]) 17:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:21, 21 September 2017
Welcome Ilirpedia!
I'm Jax 0677, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.
Some pages of helpful information to get you started: | Some common sense Dos and Don'ts:
|
If you need further help, you can: | or you can: | or even: |
Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{helpme}}
here on your talk page, and someone will try to help.
There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:
|
|
Remember to always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes ~~~~
at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to this (your talk) page, and a timestamp.
The best way to learn about something is to experience it. Explore, learn, contribute, and don't forget to have some fun!
{{My sandbox}}
on your user page. By the way, seeing as you haven't created a user page yet, simply click here to start it.August 2017
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Greek government-debt crisis. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- Hi C.Fred. I am trying to contribute to the Greek government-debt crisis but, there are some individuals that are disrupting the contribution. You can take a look yourself and let me know what was done wrong. - talk (talk)
- It appears to me that you are involved in a dispute over the content of the article. I don't see where anybody is clearly vandalizing the article, so the three-revert rule applies. Since there is dissent to your change, you need to start a discussion at Talk:Greek government-debt crisis and get support for the changes. See WP:BRD for more information on how the process should work. —C.Fred (talk) 00:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- As for what you have done wrong, you have violated the three-revert rule on Greek government-debt crisis. You should undo your most recent change and then discuss your desired edits on the article's talk page. Would you like assistance to undo your last edit? —C.Fred (talk) 00:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
What is there to discuss, I am providing well established sources, plus all my revision was undone for no valid reason, therefore the violation of the three-revert rule in this case in not applicable, because no valid reason was provided for undoing my work in Wikipedia. These admins/editors talk about greek crises effect on Horse Races, and yet are not okay with WHO data. Ilirpedia (talk) 01:00, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- Your edit is not an exception to 3RR per the policy. Therefore you are in violation of 3RR. Would you like to self-revert? The alternative is that I will revert your edit and will block your account if you revert the page again. —C.Fred (talk) 01:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Ilirpedia reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: ). Thank you. Dr. K. 00:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions alert about the Balkans
Template:Z33--Dr. K. 00:39, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
August 2017
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.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. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Ilirpedia (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am having a hard time contributing to Wikipedia article for which I was blocked. It is very time consuming to have to deal with disruptors in that article. The admin that referred me for blocking, is more like bureaucrats, focusing on 3-revert rule rather than the contribution to the article. Therefore making future contributions to Wikipedia very tough to do and even more time consuming. I am not aware of which specific three-revert rule I have violated, as I did not undu any pages but rather added more solid research to it . Thanks and I am hoping that I can finally see someone reasonable in Wikipedia and not a GANG of editors on the greek pages. Sorry but this was my experience so far in the current state of Wikipedia.
Decline reason:
You made six reverts, which clearly violates the WP:3RR rule. Lots of people find the 3RR rule inconvenient but that doesn't give anyone an excuse to ignore it. EdJohnston (talk) 03:06, 28 August 2017 (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.
.
- You were provided a link to WP:Edit warring#The three-revert rule in the message I left for you about it. It was explained to you that the other editors were not acting disruptively. The block has nothing to do with the merits (or lack thereof) of your edits; it has everything to do with the fact that, rather than engaging in discussion, you just kept making the same edits over and over. That behaviour has been deemed disruptive by the community; that's why the three-revert rule exists. I was willing to extend you one more chance, but Drmies opted not to. —C.Fred (talk) 01:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- —C.Fred, other users were undoing the edit I did, over and over, without any logic behind it, and you did not improve the situation the way you should have given your status. You say that the UN WHO data and info needs to be discussed in the talk page. Why? Any of the editors in reverting my article are PHD's in World Health? What specific data or information did you think that requires discussion? You never stated which part needs to be discussed, but rather threw out all my research and UN WHO data and information. The data source was not an unknown source or a blog spot source. Sorry but I truly think that you have been also disruptive in this article, and have not represented your status level. I understand that you are a volunteer too, but please also stay impartial, and use common sense. Thanks!!!Ilirpedia (talk) 03:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- I restored the status quo to the situation. WP:BRD is a very clear model: if you make a bold edit that is reverted, you need to discuss the edit on the talk page. Frankly, if I were to opine on the merits of your edit, I would probably agree that the data warrants mentioning in the article. However, I wasn't participating in the article's editing as an editor. I was participating as an admin responding to a situation where an editor was violating 3RR. That's why my edit summary noted that I was reverting due to your 3RR violation—it was a procedural revert, not a revert based on the material lacking merit. —C.Fred (talk) 03:13, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- Understood, I did not know that the editing also counts as a reverting it, and therefore towards the three-revert limit....Eventually, I will take it to the talk page of the article and see what kind of perspective will some of the editors of this article with PhD's in World Health provide :) However I am expecting that when I do that you or the admin available will be unbiased and not revert back my data based on non-important stuff like an out of place comma :) Thanks.
- Ilirpedia (talk) 03:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- If it were just a misplaced comma, that'd be fixable—and I'd take to task any editor who reverted an edit just over that. However, what you've been doing is running roughshod over WP:Consensus, which is a Wikipedia policy that all editors are expected to comply with. —C.Fred (talk) 15:23, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- Ilirpedia (talk) 03:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, I did indeed take a look after you send me that and noted the following: " .... most disputes over content may be resolved through minor changes rather than taking an all-or-nothing position. Often, a simple rewording will satisfy all editors' concerns. Whether changes come through editing or through discussion, the encyclopedia is best improved through collaboration and consensus, not through combat and capitulation...." What I have experienced was a all-or-nothing position by other editors in that article. My contribution was being undone by disruptors and I did not receive the support that my contribution deserved. None of the editors, challenged or tried to make the World Health Organization data better or help with the writing. They took a not all but a nothing position to my contributions. Very disappointed in Wikipedia and certain people in here. Ilirpedia (talk) 15:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- Read that section again about "not through combat and capitulation". Edit warring is attempting to ram changes down the throats of other editors. As I noted with the WP:BRD essay, the burden is on the editor initiating the change—you, in this case—to justify the change. In a case like this, that means that you need to initiate the talk page discussion to get support for the change, since the status-quo represents the consensus of editors, to that point, of how the article should proceed. By not taking the issue to the talk page, you were the one taking the all-or-nothing approach. —C.Fred (talk) 15:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- And again, the other editors were not editing disruptively. You really need to come to terms with that; otherwise, it may have an adverse effect on your continued editing of Wikipedia after your block expires. —C.Fred (talk) 15:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- Okay, so you are saying to post my contribution first to the articles talk page, and then what are the next steps I should take? Thanks and sorry for taking so much of your time. Ilirpedia (talk) 16:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- Not just post it, but explain. State why we should add it. Comment on the reliability of the sources. Maybe compare to how similar information is presented in similar articles. Then you wait for replies from other editors. Listen to what they have to say. Then work toward a solution that will make everybody (or at least the majority of people) happy. —C.Fred (talk) 16:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Ilirpedia (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #19094 was submitted on Aug 28, 2017 02:46:27. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 02:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Ilirpedia (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #19098 was submitted on Aug 28, 2017 14:19:38. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 14:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Greek government-debt crisis.
- 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, and seek consensus with them. 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.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Whispering 03:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Whispe, which part of the edit do you regard as disruptive? Feel free to use the article's talk page and not my user talk page. Thanks. Ilirpedia (talk) 03:36, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Continued warring at Greek government debt crisis
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.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.
Recently you came off an AN3 block for revert warring on this article by User:Drmies, and after expiry of the block you resumed on the same article, putting back some of the HIV-related material that you were warring about the first time. It seems that a 24-hour block was not sufficient to persuade you to follow our policies. EdJohnston (talk) 03:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for putting the link to that discussion in here, EdJohnston--I never saw the report, I saw the edits and the warnings. It's interesting to see an editor come back to that report to insult some of the other editors and the admins; this does not bode well. And then this nonsense about racism... No, Ilirpedia, I did not block you on the basis of your username; I don't even know what it means. I think it did remind me of a Wu-Tang joint--"It's the mic wrecker, Inspector, bad man / From the bad lands of the killer, rap fanatic / Representing with the skill that's iller". I am hoping your skills here will get iller too. Drmies (talk) 03:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
-
- Let me reframe the above. When a user has been blocked, that person may not edit Wikipedia for the duration of the block (except to request an unblock at their talk page). Ilirpedia, you were blocked in particular for edit warring at Greek government-debt crisis and repeatedly inserting material about HIV rates. While the block is still in effect, an edit was then made to the article from an IP address—a user not logged in—who not only re-adds the same material but refers to it as undoing an edit. The obvious conclusion is that it's the same person: Ilirpedia editing while logged out. It's a pattern that's happened enough before that administrators and other editors will assume that's the situation, whether it is or not—and it's all but impossible to prove it isn't. Because the situation is similar to a person putting a sock on their hand to make a cheap puppet, we use the term sock puppetry to refer to the act.So, my advice is to either ride out your block quietly or to engage in positive discussion here about how you can edit more collaboratively after your block expires. If there's a recurrence of these end-run edits by IPs, you may find that another admin extends your block to weeks, months, or indefinitely. —C.Fred (talk) 18:36, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- Due to your aggravated edit-warring and sockpuppetry using IP 69.193.202.66 (talk · contribs), I've extended the block to 2 weeks. Block evasion does not pay. GABgab 00:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Qeleshe/Plis pictures
Hello Ilirpedia
When your block finishes (not sure if you can at least edit this page), but if you can, would you be able to provide some information regarding two pictures you uploaded [1], [2]. Some more information is needed as to where you took those picture, what are those ancient reliefs/carvings of and which museum did you take the pictures in? They are good pictures and i would not want to lose them due to their relevance to the Qeleshe article. We have lost to many Albanian editors over the years which has left numerous articles in a crappy position. Read up on some rules and you will have the making of becoming a good editor. Best regards.Resnjari (talk) 17:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I took them in Tirana, Albania, but I believe they were temporarily loaned from the archaeological museum in Shkup. They probably are returned in Shkup, by now. The time period is from before Roman Empire, most likely from the period of Illyrians due to the writings in it; but is unclear what the writings showed on them. Ilirpedia (talk) 13:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
- You need to add that information to the pictures, otherwise we get disruptive edits from the usual types [3] that will claim technicalities for the removal of those pictures. Best.Resnjari (talk) 13:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
- So the greek pileus page in wikipedia can get away with using https://pileusblog.wordpress.com/page/2/ as a valid information source to link, yet I have to go through all of these appeals and non-sense to protect my edits with WHO data...next time I see Jimbo, I'm going to complain to him directly.Ilirpedia (talk) 14:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Talk Pages and POV
Hello, I am notifying you that your extremely POV comments here: link have been reverted by another user. The article Talk pages may only be used as means of improving the articles and in accordance with Wikipedia's principles and policies (see WP:RULES). Noting your past records of POV and disruption in Wikipedia, I highly recommend that you take the time to familiarize yourself with the project's rules, and refrain from similar POV edits on Balkan-related articles and their talk pages. Have a good day. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 13:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
- The statement in 1783 from one of the Founding Fathers of the United States of America and the 2nd President of the USA has merits to be quoted as this was something communicated by John Adams to Livingston and it is made available and it is verifiable from the Library of the US Congress. These are John Adam's own words on greeks at that time. See below quoted text:
- "The Greeks of this day, although they are said to have imagination and ingenuity, are corrupted in their morals to such a degree as to be a faithless, perfidious race, destitute of courage, as well as of those principles of honor and virtue without which nations can have no confidence in one another, nor be trusted by others."
- SOURCE: Library of Congress - American Memory [MSS. Dep. of State; 4 Sparks' Dip. Rev. Corr., 61.]; website http://memory.loc.gov/ ->search term: "Albania Illyricum"
- Feel free to do a search of your own in the Library of the US Congress to confirm it was indeed made by John Adams. This statement made in 1783, by a US founding Father and by the 2nd US President of the USA has weight and should be noted down in history. I will not say that they are true, nor will I say that they are not true, therefore I will not express my POV but rather just quote what is a verifiable source of information dating back to 1783. Therefore your argument or anyone's argument that this statement is my POV, is purely wrong and not true.
- If you are indeed here to help in Wikipedia, you can suggest which greek article should this statement be mentioned.....Maybe if Alexikoua was not so busy on blocking Albanian editors and reverting good information on Albanian wikipedia pages, he could have more time to research all this information on Greece, and I can spend my time to research information on Albanian wikipedia pages. Ilirpedia (talk) 15:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
- Yo Ilirpedia, that statement by one of the US founding fathers is not necessary, otherwise the page on Greeks would be filled with such statements from many prominent people saying colourful things. Unless its really relevant to the article, which in this instance its not. You can add that statement if you want on the Albanian Wikipedia on the page about president John Adams (if it exists) under a subsection titled Views or something -or create one. I understand where your coming from regarding editors and their trivial pursuits of other editors, best not to indulge such them though. Its how they managed to get the better of other editors through bans and other things. On this one heed my advice. And read up on wiki guidelines and rules. You will save yourself a lot of exchanges with the usual types. Best.Resnjari (talk) 16:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
- All of history is colorful. For instance, Greeks considered Illyrians as barbarians because they did not believe in Greek Gods like Zeus Apollo, etc. Over 2,000 years later those greek gods are no longer believed by greeks them-self. Yet, back 2,000 years ago, you would be called in history a barbarian if you did not follow the greek gods. So colorful or not, it is not for us to judge. I am open to other suggestions as well though. And then we can decide whats the best solution...
- FYI, the statement is verifiable, and it is available online in the Library of Unites States Congress database. Use search terms "Albania" & "Illyricum". Ilirpedia (talk) 16:24, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
- I am not denying that it is real, the main thing is, is it relevant to that article? The article is about Greeks in general, not John Adam's view of Greeks. Such a comment might be more applicable on the article about that president instead. Ilirpedia please read the wp:reliable and [[wp:secondary} policy on sources and content. Read that whole page, otherwise your going to end up in complicated situations. Its happened to a fair number of Albanian editors, don't place yourself in a situation of becoming another scalp on the list of bans. I don't want to see that happen. You have the potential and drive, but it needs to be done with policy and guidelines. Best.Resnjari (talk) 16:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
- Heed my advice, by the way this kind of behavior [4], [5] which this particular editor has done with me in the past is a no. Watch out for baiting in such situations, see wp:bait and Don't feed the trolls.Resnjari (talk) 17:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
- Restore your page as you wish when you are online. The editor in question wants me to revert a third time [6] and claim the usual edit warring gibberish. Remember this is your userpage, as WP:TPO policy states that "Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling, and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived." In this case you are just citing what you consider is fact by quoting an American president.Resnjari (talk) 17:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
- Heed my advice, by the way this kind of behavior [4], [5] which this particular editor has done with me in the past is a no. Watch out for baiting in such situations, see wp:bait and Don't feed the trolls.Resnjari (talk) 17:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
- I am not denying that it is real, the main thing is, is it relevant to that article? The article is about Greeks in general, not John Adam's view of Greeks. Such a comment might be more applicable on the article about that president instead. Ilirpedia please read the wp:reliable and [[wp:secondary} policy on sources and content. Read that whole page, otherwise your going to end up in complicated situations. Its happened to a fair number of Albanian editors, don't place yourself in a situation of becoming another scalp on the list of bans. I don't want to see that happen. You have the potential and drive, but it needs to be done with policy and guidelines. Best.Resnjari (talk) 16:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)